Ex Parte Brusca

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2013

10136961 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL STUART BRUSCA

_____________

Appeal 2012-001077
Application 10/136,961
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001077
Application 10/136,961

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a Broadband Network
Termination (B-NT) SNMP Manager/Client 110 requesting and receiving
configuration information from a Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) server 185 which in turn obtains the requested information from an
LDAP Directory 180 (Spec. 12:24-13:25; Fig. 1). Middleware 175 converts
the SNMP requesting message to LDAP messages and the LDAP response
to an SNMP response (Spec. 13:7-9 and Spec. 13:17-20; Fig. 1).
Claim 10, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
10. An apparatus for facilitating a configuration of a device to
access a network service, comprising:

a module for receiving, in a first protocol format, a request for
information for configuring said device;

a module for retrieving said information, in a second protocol format,
from a directory system;

a processor for converting said information from said second protocol
format to said first protocol format; and

a module for transmitting said information, in said first protocol
format, in response to said request.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Appeal 2012-001077
Application 10/136,961

3
Ma US 2003/0069948 A1 Apr. 10, 2003
(filed Oct. 5, 2001)
Page US 7,024,476 B1 Apr. 4, 2006
(filed Sep. 13, 2000)

The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ma in view of Page.

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Ma in view of
Page teaches receiving “in a first protocol format, a request for information
for configuring” a device, retrieving the information “in a second protocol
format” and “converting said information from said second protocol format
to said first protocol format” as recited in claim 10 (emphasis added).

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1. Ma teaches that the mediation server sends an LDAP request to the
directory server (512) to create a new access device configuration
profile for a particular ISP and service level chosen by a user (¶
[0035], step 512 in Fig. 5).
2. Ma also teaches that the mediation server sends an SNMP command
(514) to the access device with the configuration file or configuration
information and a command to reboot using the new configuration file
(¶ [0035]). We note that in Figure 5 it is the Directory Server, and not
Appeal 2012-001077
Application 10/136,961

4
the mediation server, that sends the SNMP command (see step 514 in
Fig. 5).
3. Page teaches an LDAP/SNMP translator that updates information
received from a directory entry and formats the information to SNMP
prior to forwarding to a client (col. 17, ll. 39-45).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Supreme Court stated that “‘[r]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Ma does not teach two
communications in different formats containing the same “said information,”
and therefore Ma does not teach or suggest “converting said information
from said second protocol format to said first protocol format” (App. Br.
17). Appellant asserts that Ma does not teach or suggest that messages
formatted in accordance with a first protocol, such as SNMP, are converted,
translated, or otherwise reformed into messages formatted in accordance
with a second protocol, such as LDAP (App. Br. 25).
Appellant further argues that while Page is cited for the proposition
that “converting from one type of protocol format to another protocol format
was known in the art at the time the invention was made,” Ma does not
disclose the need or desirability for any type of translation (App. Br. 25).
Appeal 2012-001077
Application 10/136,961

5
Appellant points out that as described by Ma, the mediation server may be
conversant in multiple protocol formats, including both SNMP and LDAP,
and therefore is not described to have any need to convert there between
with respect to a particular request (App. Br. 25). Appellant thus, argues
that the requisite motivation to combine Ma and Page is lacking (App. Br.
25).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Ma teaches that “[a]
request is sent via SNMP” (¶ [0033]) and the response is received (¶ [0034])
through the mediation server. However, Ma is silent as to whether the
“response” is in the same protocol format or a different protocol format. Ma
further teaches that the mediation server issues a second request which is an
LDAP request and a command (i.e., not a response) in SNMP (¶ [0035]).
Nothing is disclosed in Ma about “converting” the LDAP response (i.e., said
second protocol format) into an SNMP format (i.e., said first protocol
format) as claimed. Thus, at best, Ma only teaches that the mediation server
is conversant in the two protocol formats LDAP and SNMP.
There is no teaching in Ma that the request is in a first protocol format
(i.e., SNMP) and the response is in a second protocol format (i.e., LDAP) or
that the retrieved second protocol format (i.e., LDAP) is converted to a first
protocol format (i.e., SNMP). Page teaches an LDAP/SNMP translator that
updates information received from a directory entry and formats the
information to SNMP prior to forwarding to a client (col. 17, ll. 39-45).
However, Page does not cure Ma’s deficiency. That is, in Ma, at best, the
mediator issues an SNMP command (514) to the access device with the
configuration file or configuration information and a command to reboot
using the new configuration file (¶ [0035]). This command is regarding
Appeal 2012-001077
Application 10/136,961

6
different information than the information obtained from the mediation
server LDAP request to the directory server (512) to create a new access
device configuration. Thus, there would be no need for the modification of
Page of translating between the two protocol formats of LDAP and SNMP.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection lacks articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
For the foregoing reasons, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 10 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-32.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Ma in view of Page teaches
receiving “in a first protocol format, a request for information for
configuring” a device, retrieving the information “in a second protocol
format” and “converting said information from said second protocol format to
said first protocol format” as recited in claim 10 (emphasis added).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-32 is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk