Ex Parte Borowski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2013

11129550 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte OLAF BOROWSKI
________________

Appeal 2010-009664
Application 11/129,550
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-009664
Application 11/129,550

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1 and 3 – 9. Claims 2 and 10 – 15 are canceled. See App.
Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention is directed to a method for configuring network devices
in a network that includes creating a domain having a management device
and a plurality of select network devices. A configuration command is
issued from the management device to a central network device in the
domain to configure at least one of the network devices in the domain
identified by the management device. The central network device then issues
a configuration command to each of the identified select network device. See
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim (Emphases Added)
1. A method for configuring network devices in a network
having a plurality of user computing devices, a plurality of
network devices and a management device for managing the
network devices, comprising:
creating a domain including a plurality of select network
devices by connecting said management device to each of said
select network devices, and separately issuing a command from
said management device to each of said select network devices
to add said each of said select network devices to said domain,
wherein said each of said select network devices adds itself to
said domain upon receiving said command from said
management device;
Appeal 2010-009664
Application 11/129,550

3
creating a central network device after said domain has
been created by issuing a first configuration command from
said management device to a first network device chosen from
anyone of said select network devices in said domain to
configure said first network device as said central network
device; and
issuing a second configuration command from said
central network device created from said first network device to
at least one of said select network devices in said domain to
configure said at least one of said select network devices.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3 – 5, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Krishnan (US 7,120,690 B1; Oct. 10, 2006; filed
Sept. 27, 2001). Ans. 3 – 5.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Krishnan and Herrmann (US 2002/0026506 A1;
Feb. 28, 2002). Ans. 5 – 7.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Krishnan discloses: (1) “each of
said select network devices adds itself to said domain”; (2) “creating a
central network device after said domain has been created”; and (3) “issuing
a second configuration command from said central network device created
from said first network device to at least one of said select network devices
in said domain to configure said at least one of said select network devices,”
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as being anticipated by Krishnan, which
is directed to managing a distributed directory database. See Ans. 3 – 4. In
Appeal 2010-009664
Application 11/129,550

4
particular, the Examiner finds that because in Krishnan each node in a
configuration adds a master’s IP (internet protocol) address in its DDB
(directory database), sends acknowledgement to the master, and thus aligns
itself to its master, Krishnan therefore discloses “each of said select network
devices adds itself to said domain.” See Ans. 3 (citing Krishnan fig. 5). That
is, the Examiner finds that Krishnan’s node acknowledgment and alignment
discloses adding a network device to a domain. See id. at 7.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the limitation “add”
means “to include as a member of a group.” See Reply Br. 3 (citing http://
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/add); see also App. Br. 7. Appellant
disagrees with the Examiner’s finding that alignment with a master discloses
an addition to a domain. See Reply Br. 4. However, Krishnan discloses that
alignment “means that a particular node is subordinate to, and takes its
direction from, only its master node.” Krishnan col. 10 ll. 2 – 4; see also
Ans. 7 – 8 (nodes align—i.e., assign—themselves to a master). In doing so,
the aligned node becomes part of (i.e., is added to) the master’s domain (i.e.,
the node is assigned to the master). See Krishnan fig. 3 and col. 10, ll. 6 – 8.
The acknowledgment from each node is vital “so that the master knows that
each such node is properly aligned.” Id. at col. 14, ll. 23 – 25. Otherwise, the
master “sets up a repetitive pinging activity.” Id. at col. 14, ll. 27 – 28. Since
Krishnan’s master treats nodes differently if they have not sent
acknowledgment of being properly aligned, Krishnan’s nodes add
themselves to the master’s domain only by sending an acknowledgment and
aligning themselves to the master. See Ans. 4. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Krishnan discloses “each of said select network devices adds
itself to said domain,” as recited in claim 1. See id. at 3 – 4.
Appeal 2010-009664
Application 11/129,550

5
The Examiner further finds that Krishnan, by disclosing replacement
of a master node, discloses “creating a central network device after said
domain has been created,” as recited in claim 1. Appellant contends the
Examiner erred because Krishnan shows a master node being created prior
to creation of a domain, rather than after domain creation. See App. Br. 7.
However, the Examiner does not rely on the creation of the original master
node to disclose creating a central network device. Instead, the Examiner
relies on the subsequent replacement of the original master node to disclose
creating a central network device. See Ans. 4 (citing Krishnan fig. 12).
Appellant contends that “the failure mode process identified in Figure 12 of
Krishnan is irrelevant.” App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4. However,
Appellant does not provide persuasive arguments or evidence to support this
conclusory assertion of irrelevancy. Appellant’s arguments with respect to
this disputed recitation are not responsive to, and thus not persuasive of error
in, the Examiner’s findings.
Furthermore, Krishnan discloses that the failure mode process takes
place in the context of master node failure in “an operating network
configuration, having a master node with its plurality of participating
nodes.” Krishnan col. 21, ll. 60 – 61. Since the master node already has
participating nodes when the master node fails, and thus gets replaced, the
creation of a central network device takes place after the domain has been
created. See also Ans. 8 (another node in the configuration becomes the
master node, thus the domain was already created). Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner that Krishnan discloses “creating a central network device
after said domain has been created,” as recited in claim 1. See id. at 4.
Appeal 2010-009664
Application 11/129,550

6
The Examiner also finds that Krishnan, by disclosing that the new
master (i.e., the central network device) advises the nodes that it is the new
master, discloses “issuing a second configuration command from said
central network device created from said first network device to at least one
of said select network devices in said domain to configure said at least one
of said select network devices,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4 (citing
Krishnan fig. 12). Appellant argues that Krishnan’s figure 5 fails to disclose
issuing a second configuration command after the central network device is
created. See App. Br. 7. However, Appellant does not persuasively respond
to Examiner’s findings with respect to Krishnan figure 12. Moreover, we
agree with the Examiner that the notification from a new master to each
node constitutes a second configuration command, as broadly recited. See
Krishnan fig. 12; see also Ans. 9 – 10. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Krishnan discloses “issuing a second configuration command
from said central network device created from said first network device to at
least one of said select network devices in said domain to configure said at
least one of said select network devices,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1, or
in rejecting dependent claims 3 – 9, which are not argued separately with
sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 8.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3 – 9.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2010-009664
Application 11/129,550

7

AFFIRMED

ELD