Ex Parte Brusca

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 1, 2010

10136961 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 1, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL STUART BRUSCA

_____________

Appeal 2009-005713
Application 10/136,961
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: March 1, 2010
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR. Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-005713
Application 10/136,961

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 module 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 REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ma US 2003/0069948 A1 Apr. 10, 2003
(filed Oct. 5, 2001)
Civanlar US 2003/0033379 A1 Feb. 13, 2003
2
Appeal 2009-005713
Application 10/136,961

(effectively filed Apr.
3, 2002)

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 Civanlar.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether Ma in view of Civanlar 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 claimed.

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1. Ma teaches that “a request is sent via SNMP” (¶ [0033]) and the
response is received (¶ [0034]) through the mediation server.
2. Ma further teaches that the mediation server issues a second request
which is an LDAP request and a command in SNMP (¶ [0035]).
3. Nothing is disclosed in Ma about “converting” the LDAP response
into an SNMP format as claimed.
4. Civanlar teaches that Gateways are conversant in different formats
such as XML, Java, SNMP, and CLI (¶ [0034]).

3
Appeal 2009-005713
Application 10/136,961

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The
Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues inter alia that in Ma the request to and the response
from the directory server have the same protocol format, namely, LDAP, as
opposed to having a first and second protocol formats as claimed (App. Br.
10). Appellant further argues that while Civanlar 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. 11).
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. 11).
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. 11). Appellant thus
argues that the requisite motivation to combine Ma and Civanlar is lacking
(App. Br. 11).
4
Appeal 2009-005713
Application 10/136,961

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 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). Civanlar does not cure the cited deficiencies
but only re-affirms that Gateways (i.e., much like Appellant’s Middleware
175 and Ma’s mediation server) are conversant in different formats such as
XML, Java, SNMP, and CLI (¶ [0034]).
For the foregoing reasons, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejections
of claim 10 and for similar reasons the rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-32.

CONCLUSION
Ma in view of Civanlar does not teach 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 claimed.

5
Appeal 2009-005713
Application 10/136,961

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

REVERSED

ELD

VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 NORTH COURT HOUSE ROAD
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909

6