Ex Parte Connell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2013

10820295 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRIAN CONNELL, GREG WILBUR, JOHN AFAGANIS,
IAN MacFARLANE and LORI-ANN McGRATH
____________________

Appeal 2010-009132
Application 10/820,295
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and LYNNE E.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-009132
Application 10/820,295

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system and method
for modeling in a common representation network element commands,
events, and data from sources (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:

modeling network element commands, events and run-
time system data into a data model using a first modeling
language, the data model comprising first data;

translating the first data represented in the first modeling
language to second data represented in a second modeling
language;

storing the second data in the second modeling language
in a global data model repository; and

automatically generating code to support an external
management interface based on the stored second data in the
global repository, the external management interface
communicating with the stored second data.

Appeal 2010-009132
Application 10/820,295

3
References
Menzies US 2002/0091809 A1 Jul. 11, 2002
Courtney US 2003/0046370 A1 Mar. 6, 2003
Rejections
(1) Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
(2) Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-16, 18-22, 24, 26, 27, and 29 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Menzies.
(3) Claims 5-7, 11, 17, 23, 25, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menzies and Courtney.

We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph: claim 21
The Examiner rejected claim 21 as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant
regards as the invention (Final Rej. 2-3). Specifically, the Examiner
maintains the recited limitation “the generated system documentation” lacks
sufficient antecedent basis (id.).
Appeal 2010-009132
Application 10/820,295

4
Appellants presented an amendment to overcome the rejection (Ans.
2, ¶4; 3); however, the Examiner has not entered the Amendment and
Appellants present no arguments to overcome the rejection. Accordingly,
we pro forma affirm the Examiner’s rejection. Therefore, the rejection of
claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
applicant regards as the invention is affirmed.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-16, 18-22, 24, 26, 27, and 29
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Menzies (App.
Br. 4-6). Specifically, Appellants argue Menzies does not disclose
“modeling network element commands, events and run-time system data
into a data model using a first modeling language, the data model
comprising first data;” “translating the first data represented in the first
modeling language to second data represented in a second modeling
language;” and “automatically generating code to support an external
management interface based on the stored second data in the global
repository, the external management interface communicating with the
stored second data” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 4).
Appellants argue the recited data model is more than Menzies’
configuration file (App. Br. 4-5). Further, according to Appellants, the
arrangement of the present invention, which includes a network element, is
not taught or suggested by Menzies (App. Br. 5). Appellants additionally
Appeal 2010-009132
Application 10/820,295

5
argue Menzies merely maps management information from one schema to
another and does not translate first data to second data as recited (id.).
Moreover, Appellants maintain Menzies’ transparent translating the
user’s high-level query into a series of simple retrievals and performing the
query internally on behalf of the user does not describe “automatically
generating code to support an external management interface based on the
stored second data in the global repository” (App. Br. 6). Instead, according
to Appellants, Menzies discloses translating a user’s high-level query into a
series of simpler queries (id.).

Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Menzies discloses
“modeling network element commands, events and run-time system data
into a data model using a first modeling language, the data model
comprising first data;” “translating the first data represented in the first
modeling language to second data represented in a second modeling
language;” and “automatically generating code to support an external
management interface based on the stored second data in the global
repository, the external management interface communicating with the
stored second data” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that using a broad, but reasonable,
interpretation of the claims, in light of the Specification, Menzies discloses
the invention as recited (Ans. 10-12). We emphasize Appellants have not
explicitly defined the disputed terms such as “modeling,” “data model,” and
Appeal 2010-009132
Application 10/820,295

6
“translate” and have not presented sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us the Examiner’s interpretation is in error.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Menzies discloses
modeling of commands, events, and run-time data (Ans. 10). We note,
Appellants have admitted Menzies discloses translating management
information from one scheme (MIB) to another (CIM), i.e., translates a first
data to a second data (Br. 5-6; Ans. 11). We further agree with the Examiner
that both MIBs and CIM are data represented in modeling language (Ans.
11).
In addition, we agree that Menzies describes CIMOM may
transparently translate the user’s high-level query into a series of simple
retrievals and then perform the query internally on behalf of the user
(Menzies, [0060]). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Menzies
describes generating code (translating the user’s high-level query into a
series of simple retrievals) to support an external management interface
based on the second data (id). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
Menzies discloses “automatically generating code to support an external
management interface based on the stored second data in the global
repository, the external management interface communicating with the
stored second data” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately
recited in independent claims 13 and 19. Dependent claims 2-4, 8-10, 12,
14-16, 18, 19-22, 24, 26, 27, and 29 were not separately argued and,
therefore, fall with their respective independent claims.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding Menzies discloses
the invention as recited in claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-16, 18-22, 24, 26, 27, and 29.
Appeal 2010-009132
Application 10/820,295

7
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-16, 18-
22, 24, 26, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Menzies.

ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 5-7, 11, 17, 23, 25, and 28
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Menzies and
Courtney because Courtney does cure the deficiencies of Menzies (App. Br.
8). Specifically, Appellants contend Courtney teaches configuring network
equipment by simply converting a router’s commands from a native
representation into a standard format (App. Br. 8). However, Appellants
contend Courtney does not store a data model; model a network element’s
commands, events, and run-time system data; or creating commands in a
standard format to interface with routers themselves (id.). Thus, according
to Appellants, Courtney does not teach a complete data model representation
of a network element where the data model is used to automatically generate
code for an interface that communicates and interacts with the stored data
model.

Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Menzies and Courtney teaches or suggests the invention as recited in the
dependent claims argued?
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt
them as our own (Ans. 13). As set forth above in Issue 1, Appellants have
not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Menzies discloses the
Appeal 2010-009132
Application 10/820,295

8
disputed limitations. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments that Courtney
does not teach or suggest these disputed limitations do not persuade us the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Menzies and Courtney.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Menzies and Courtney teaches or suggests the
invention as recited in claims 5-7, 11, 17, 23, 25, and 28, not separately
argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5-7, 11, 17,
23, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Menzies and
Courtney.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-16, 18-22, 24, 26,
27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Menzies is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7, 11, 17, 23, 25, and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menzies and Courtney is
affirmed.

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) (2011).

Appeal 2010-009132
Application 10/820,295

9
AFFIRMED

ELD