Ex Parte Cupit

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2012

10954521 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN E. CUPIT
____________

Appeal 2010-003066
Application 10/954,521
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-003066
Application 10/954,521

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-33. (App. Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The Invention
Exemplary independent claim 1 follows:
1. A method for provisioning a service on a
communication network comprising:

receiving a service order comprising a service request,
the service request relating to a service provided on a
communication network;

analyzing the service order to determine:

a plurality of network elements to provision to
complete the service request; and

one or more network resources of the
communication network required to complete the service
request;

retrieving a configuration profile for each of the plurality
of network elements;

reserving the one or more network resources of the
communication network required to complete the service
request;

preparing a service template for each of the plurality of
network elements using the configuration profile for each of the
plurality of network elements, the service templates capable of
being delivered to respective network elements for execution;
and
Appeal 2010-003066
Application 10/954,521

3

delivering each service template to a respective network
element for execution to fulfill the service order.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dal Canto (US Patent 7,363,363 B2, April 22, 2008, filed
Dec. 23, 2002) in view of Mckeown (U.S. 2004/0261116, Dec. 23, 2004,
filed July 3, 2003). (Ans. 3-14.)

ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner establish that Mckeown teaches “preparing a
service template for each of the plurality of network elements using the
configuration profile for each of the plurality of network elements … and
delivering each service template to a respective network element for
execution to fulfill the service order,” as recited in independent claim 1 and
as similarly recited in independent claims 12 and 23?

ANALYSIS
After acknowledging that Dal Canto does not teach the claimed steps
of “preparing a service template for each of the plurality of network
elements using the configuration profile for each of the plurality of network
elements … and delivering each service template to a respective network
element for execution to fulfill the service order” (Ans. 4), the Examiner
found that Mckeown teaches these claimed steps. (Id. at 4-5.) In particular,
the Examiner reasoned that Mckeown teaches these steps because it
Appeal 2010-003066
Application 10/954,521

4
discloses that a configuration manager provides “a template library which
classifies the templates.” (Ans. 6.) The Examiner also reasoned that
Mckeown teaches “delivering the services toward [sic] end user.” (Id.) As
explained by Appellant, however, the independent claims require more; they
require the preparation of a service template for each network element using
its configuration profile and the delivery of that service template to the
network element for execution. (App. Br. 13.) And as further explained by
Appellant, Mckeown does not teach or suggest the delivery of service
templates that have been prepared using their configuration profile to
network elements for execution. (Id. at 13-15.) Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 12, and 23 or the
claims dependent therefrom.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-33.

REVERSED

peb