Ex Parte Gray et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 9, 2011

10903585 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 2011)

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