Ex Parte Hamedi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 13, 2012

10870724 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MOHAMED HAMEDI
________________

Appeal 2010-003073
Application 10/870,724
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003073
Application 10/870,724

2
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, and 18-20.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Rzonca (US 5,991,814).1
Claims 3, 11, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Rzonca in view of Martenson (US 6,219,708 B1).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant’s invention pertains generally to data processing and
gathering network management data. Spec. ¶ 0001. Network data is
gathered from a plurality of network-coupled data processing arrangements
using a network management protocol, such as Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP). A command line status function (i.e., a
command line interface, or CLI) is remotely executed on one or more of the
data processing arrangements. Combined network data is formed based on
the network data and a result of the command line status function and is
presented for use in a network management arrangement. See generally
Spec. ¶¶ 0007, 0008, 0015, 0022.
Independent claim 1 is representative with key disputed limitations
emphasized2:

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed August 3,
2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 5, 2009; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed December 7, 2009.
Appeal 2010-003073
Application 10/870,724

3
1. A processor-based method for gathering network management data,
comprising:
gathering network data from a plurality of network-coupled data
processing arrangements using a network management protocol;
remotely executing a command line status function on one or more of
the data processing arrangements, the command line status function
providing user-readable results describing status of the one or more data
processing arrangements;
forming combined network data based on the network data and the
results of the command line status function;
wherein forming the combined network data comprises comparing the
network data to the result of the command line status function; and
presenting the combined network data for use in a network
management arrangement.

ARGUMENTS
The Examiner finds that Rzonca discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 1 including gathering network data using a network
management protocol and forming the combined network data comprises
comparing the network data to the result of the command line status
function. (Ans. 3-5, 20-23).
Appellant asserts that Rzonca does not disclose gathering network
data using a network protocol because (1) Rzonca does not teach that
termination module 50 issues SNMP commands to gather network data3
(App. Br. 9:9-11); (2) Rzonca does not teach that the data stored at local

2 Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-15, and 18-20 together as a group.
See App. Br. 7-10. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative.
3 We do not consider this argument because claim 1 does not recite that
SNMP commands are issued to gather network data. Instead, claim 1 more
broadly recites “gathering network data . . . using a network management
protocol.”
Appeal 2010-003073
Application 10/870,724

4
equipment database 60 includes data gathered using a network management
protocol (App. Br. 9:11-13); and (3) Rzonca does not teach that the data
being updated at the central equipment database 62 includes any network
data gathered using a network management protocol (App. Br. 10:12-14).
Appellant also asserts that Rzonca does not disclose forming
combined network data comprises comparing the network data to the result
of the command line status function because (1) Rzonca does not teach that a
comparison is made prior to performing the update to the central equipment
database 624 (App. Br. 10:14-15); (2) “[i]t is possible that the old
reconfiguration data associated with the network element stored at the
central equipment database 62 is simply overwritten by the new
reconfiguration data” (App. Br. 10:15-17); and (3) the change of equipment
database 62 in response to the SNMP command from network termination
module 50 to NMS 38 has nothing to do with comparing network data to the
result of the command line status function (Reply Br. 3:14-20).5

4 We do not consider this argument because claim 1 does not recite that a
comparison is made prior to performing the update to the central database
62.
5 The Reply Brief also contends that Rzonca does not disclose remotely
executing a command line status function on one or more of the data
processing arrangements, where the command line status function provides
user-readable results describing the status of the one or more data processing
arrangements. Reply Br. 3. This argument has been waived by Appellant’s
failure to raise it in the initial brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473,
1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity
to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on
appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”). See also Optivus
Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.”
(citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Appeal 2010-003073
Application 10/870,724

5

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Rzonca discloses
gathering network data using a network management protocol?
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Rzonca discloses
forming the combined network data comprises comparing the network data
to the result of the command line status function?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. “Gather” can be defined as “to bring together into a crowd,
group, body, or mass.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL
DICTIONARY 940 (1961).
2. Appellant uses a form of the word “compare” only once in his
original disclosure, stating “[t]he command line information shown in
Listing 1 can be compared against the SNMP version to verify that these
versions are the same.” Spec. ¶ 0022.
3. Appellant’s original disclosure does not teach forming the
combined network data comprises comparing the network data to the result
of the command line status function.
4. “Compare” can be defined as “to examine the character or
qualities of (as two or more persons or things) esp. for the purpose of
discovering resemblances or differences.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 462 (1961).
5. Rzonca uses a CLI module 30, executed on workstation
platform 36 that sends command lines and receives TL1 responses. Col. 3,
ll. 62-66.
Appeal 2010-003073
Application 10/870,724

6
6. Rzonca’s TL1 command lines are sent to network elements
(NEs) 20 to provide fault management, configuration management, and
performance management of the NEs 20. Col. 4, ll. 29-32.
7. Rzonca also has a network management software module
(NMS) 38 that uses the SNMP. Workstation platform 36 also executes the
NMS 38. Col. 3, l. 66–col. 4, l. 2.
8. Each NE 20 in Rzonca has a number of cards. Col. 4, ll. 45-47.
9. When any of Rzonca’s cards in NEs 20 is reconfigured by a
TL1 command line, that reconfiguration is reflected by updating the local
equipment database 60. Col. 4, ll. 57-61.
10. In addition, to the extent Rzonca’s local equipment database 60
is updated, similar update information is sent to the NMS 38 in SNMP
protocol so as to update the equipment database 62. Col. 4, l. 65–col. 5, l. 3;
col. 5, l. 62–col. 6, l. 1. This is achieved by network termination terminal
module 50 generating an SNMP protocol command to the NMS 38 in
response to any to any change in the local equipment database 60 such that
the SNMP command as interpreted by the NMS 38 causes an appropriate
and consistent change in the equipment database 62. Col. 6, ll. 1-7.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-15, and 18-20
gathering network data using a network management protocol
Although Appellant argues that Rzonca does not teach that the data
stored at local equipment database 60 includes data gathered using a network
management protocol (App. Br. 9:11-13), claim 1 does not recite that the
Appeal 2010-003073
Application 10/870,724

7
data is gathered using a network management protocol and then stored after
it has been gathered using the network management protocol.
Instead, claim 1 broadly recites “gathering network data . . . using a
network management protocol” without reciting anything about storing the
data. The Examiner finds that the claimed recitation is met by NEs 20
(which includes local equipment database 60) being coupled to workstation
36 via an ATM network 40 using SNMP. Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds
that the database 62 is synchronized with the updates made in the local
equipment database 60 by the generation of SNMP commands. Ans. 21:15-
19. Giving the claim term “gather” its broadest reasonable interpretation
(FF 1), we agree that data in local databases 60 has been gathered and then
transmitted to central equipment database 62. Accordingly, therefore,
contrary to Appellant’s argument above and his similar argument at page 10,
lines 12-14, of the Appeal Brief, the data being updated at the central
equipment database 62 includes network data gathered from databases 60 in
NEs 20 using a network management protocol. See FF 10.

forming the combined network data comprises comparing the network
data to the result of the command line status function
The Examiner finds that Rzonca forms the recited combined network
data at equipment database 62 comprising both the data updated responsive
to TL1 commands and by SNMP PDUs (Protocol Data Units). See col. 4, l.
10. Ans. 4:6-13.
The Examiner also finds that forming the combined network data
comprises comparing the network data to the command line status function.
Ans. 4:6-21 (citing col. 5, l. 62–col. 6, l. 10). Because Appellant’s
Specification does not define “comparing,” we broadly construe
Appeal 2010-003073
Application 10/870,724

8
“comparing” as examining the qualities of two or more things for the
purpose of discovering resemblances or differences. FF 4.
With this construction, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that
any updates in Rzonca’s local equipment database 60 are made to be
consistent with the equipment database 62, thereby disclosing comparing the
network data to the result of the command line status function so as to
maintain consistency between the two databases. Ans. 4:16-21.
Appellant’s contention, that there is not necessarily a comparison if
the new reconfiguration data simply overwrites the old reconfiguration data
(App. Br. 10), does not account for the broad definition of “compare.”
When data from database 60 is transferred to database 62 for purposes of
updating database 62, the character or qualities of the two databases are
examined, at some point, however brief, to determine if there are
resemblances or differences between the data in the two databases.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 1.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim,
independent claims 7, 14, and 19, which are commensurate with claim 1,
and dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, 18, and 20, none of which have
been argued with particularity and which therefore fall with claim 1.

Claims 3, 11, and 16
We will also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3, 11, and 16
which have been rejected over Rzonca in view of Martenson, but which have
also not been argued with particularity.

Appeal 2010-003073
Application 10/870,724

9
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, and 18-20
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc