Ex Parte Helmer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 7, 2014

12104614 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/104,614 04/17/2008 Darren Helmer LCNT/803106 4182
46363 7590 01/08/2014
WALL & TONG, LLP/
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
25 James Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
NAJJAR, SALEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2014 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DARREN HELMER, RAYMOND MARRINER,
ASHOK SADASIVAN, MARTIN SCHRYBURT, and
GURUDAS SOMADDER
____________________

Appeal 2011-009197
Application 12/104,614
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009197
Application 12/104,614

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention “relates to the field of communication networks
and, more specifically, to management of computing resources of
management systems” (Spec. 1, ll. 5-6).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for managing resources of a management
system of a provider, the management system adapted for
managing a network having a plurality of network devices, the
method comprising:
grouping the network devices into a plurality of network
device groups based on at least one characteristic associated
with each of the network devices, wherein the at least one
characteristic of each network device is indicative of an
importance of the network device to the provider; and
allocating respective portions of the resources of the
management system to the network device groups based on a
respective importance of each network device group to the
provider.

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
November 17, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 16, 2011),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 2, 2011).
Appeal 2011-009197
Application 12/104,614

3
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Dinesh Verma et al., Policy Based SLA Management in
Enterprise Networks, retrieved from Internet (hereinafter referred to as
“Verma”).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Verma in view of Andrew Campbell et a1., A Quality of Service
Architecture, Computer Communication Review, retrieved from ACM
SIGCOMM database (hereinafter referred to as “Campbell”).
Claims 7 and 10-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Verma in view of Mohit Aron et al., Cluster Reserves: A
Mechanism for Resource Management in Cluster-based Network Servers,
©2000, retrieved from ACM database (hereinafter referred to as “Aron”).

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, and 26
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because
Verma fails to disclose “managing resources of a management system” and,
thus, fails to disclose the associated limitations, as recited in claim 1 (App.
Br. 12-17 and Reply Br. 2-5). Instead, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ argument as set forth at pages 15-16 of
the Answer.
Verma discloses a differentiated services architecture, including a
QoS management tool, and describes that the architecture allows a network
Appeal 2011-009197
Application 12/104,614

4
administrator to manage and configure a DiffServ network, including the
network devices and communication links, to provide different classes of
service in the network, and thus different limits on the amount of resources
that each class of service can enforce (see, e.g., “1. Introduction,” pp. 137-
38; “2. The QoS Management Tool,” p. 139; and “3. QoS Views,” para. 8,
p. 143).
Appellants argue that Verma merely discloses “management of a
network which may include management of resources of the network” and
that “Verma is devoid of any teaching or suggestion of resources of a
management system, much less managing resources of a management
system” (App. Br. 13-14). However, the Specification discloses that a
“management system” may be any type of management system that manages
network devices and communication links of a communication network
(Spec. 3, ll. 4-10). As such, we agree with the Examiner that the term
“management system,” when construed as broadly as reasonable, covers the
DiffServ network, as taught by Verma, in its entirety, which comprises a
management component that manages the resources of that network
(Ans. 16).
We also are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that Verma fails to disclose “grouping the network
devices into a plurality of network device groups based on at least one
characteristic associated with each of the network devices, wherein the at
least one characteristic of each network device is indicative of an importance
of the network device to the provider,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 17-18
and Reply Br. 5-7).
Appeal 2011-009197
Application 12/104,614

5
Appellants argue that the portion of Verma cited by the Examiner
(i.e., “3. QoS Views, para. 3, p. 141) merely discusses user groups and
application groups, not network device groups (App. Br. 17). However, as
the Examiner observes, Verma explicitly discloses that a user group may be
defined by the IP addresses/ranges/subnets of the devices in the group. A
user group thus constitutes a group of devices that are employed by the users
(Ans. 17).
Appellants’ further argument that Verma is devoid of any teaching of
characteristics indicative of an importance of a network device to a provider
also is unpersuasive for the reasons set forth by the Examiner at pages 17-18
of the Answer. Verma discloses that there is a direct relationship between
the class of service (“COS”) assigned to a particular device group and the
priority given to that group in determining the allocation of resources
(Verma, “6. Sample QoS Configuration,” para. 3, p. 148). We agree with
the Examiner that the claimed “indication of the importance of the network
device to the provider” can be appropriately interpreted as the class of
service assigned to the network device, as taught by Verma (Ans. 18).
Finally, for much the same reasons, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that Verma fails to disclose “allocating respective
portions of the resources of the management system to the network device
groups based on a respective importance of each network device group to
the provider” (App. Br. 18-20). Instead, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ argument as set forth at pages 18-20 of
the Answer. In this regard, we note that Verma explicitly discloses that the
COS mapping for a particular user group, i.e., the relative importance of the
group to the provider, directly defines the allocation of resources, e.g., the
Appeal 2011-009197
Application 12/104,614

6
amount of bandwidth, number of connections, and access to network servers,
to the devices in that user group (Verma, p. 143, para. 1).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, and 26, which were not separately
argued.
Independent claims 27 and 28
Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 27 and 28 are
substantially identical to Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 1
except that Appellants additionally argue with respect to claim 28 that
Campbell fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of Verma. We found
Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive with respect to claim 1, and we find
them equally unpersuasive with respect to claims 27 and 28.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same
reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 7 and 10-25
Each of claims 7 and 10-25 depends, directly or indirectly, from
claim 1. Appellants do not present any arguments for the separate
patentability of dependent claims 7 and 10-25 except to assert that the
dependent claims are allowable based on their dependence on independent
claim 1. (App. Br. 24).
We are not persuaded, for the reasons outlined above, that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Therefore,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 10-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-009197
Application 12/104,614

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 26, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is sustained.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 7, 10-25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are sustained.
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).

AFFIRMED

Klh