Ex Parte Gray et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 9, 201110903585 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte ERIC W. GRAY and NAVNEETH N. KANNAN _____________ Appeal 2009-011073 Application 10/903,585 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 111 through 116, and 118 through 132. We reverse. Appeal 2009-011073 Application 10/903,585 2 INVENTION The invention is a method for inferring service on a network and simulating network performance. See pages 2 and 3 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 111 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 111. A method for simulating network performance, comprising: inferring one or more services on a network; collecting network information based on traffic on the network; determining a traffic generator that represents the traffic on the network from a perspective of at least one of the inferred services; and simulating performance of the network using the determined traffic generator. REFERENCES Lewis US 6,026,442 Feb. 15, 2000 Tannan 2004/0032857 A1 Feb. 19, 2004 Nuzman 2004/0240387 A1 Dec. 2, 2004 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 111 through 114, 116, and 118 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Tannan. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 5 of the Answer.1 1 Throughout this decision we refer to the Examiner’s Answer dated February 2, 2009. Appeal 2009-011073 Application 10/903,585 3 The Examiner has rejected claim 115 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tannan in view of Lewis. The Examiner’s rejection is on page 6 of the Answer. The Examiner has rejected claims 119 through 132 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tannan in view of Nuzman. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 6 through 10 of the Answer. ISSUE Appellants argue on pages 6 and 7 of the Brief,2 the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 111, 116, 118, and 119 are in error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the issue whether the Examiner erred in finding that Tannan teaches the input parameters used to generate simulated traffic are based on traffic on the network. ANALYSIS Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. Independent claim 111 recites “collecting network information based on traffic on the network.” Independent claims 116, 118, and 119 recite similar limitations. The Examiner cites to paragraphs 0006 and 0030 of Tannan to support the finding that Tannan teaches that input parameters used to generating the traffic simulations are collected based on traffic on the network. We have reviewed these passages of Tannan and find that this data is entered to the simulation but not that the data is 2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Brief dated November 13, 2008, Reply Brief dated March 26, 2009. Appeal 2009-011073 Application 10/903,585 4 collected based on traffic on a network. Thus, the Examiner has not shown that all of the limitations of the independent claims are taught by Tannan. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 111 through 114, 116, and 118. The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 115, and 119 through 132 similarly rely upon the teachings of Tannan to teach the limitations of independent claims 111, 116, 118, and 119, thus we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 115, and 119 through 132 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). CONCLUSION Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 111 through 116, and 118 through 132. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 111 through 116, and 118 through 132 is reversed. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation