Ex Parte Helmer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 7, 201412104614 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation