Ex Parte Huynh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2014

11355023 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte LAP T. HUYNH, DINAKARAN JOSEPH,
LINWOOD H. OVERBY JR., and
MARK T. WRIGHT
_____________

Appeal 2011-007389
Application 11/355,023
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-007389
Application 11/355,023

2

STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-6, 9, and 22-31. Claims 7, 8, 32, and 33 are indicated
as containing allowable subject matter. Claims 10-21 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method for configuring a network services protocol
implementation, the method comprising:
configuring a platform independent configuration for a
network services protocol implementation;
selecting a target node to receive a deployment of the
network services protocol implementation;
transforming the configured platform independent
configuration into a platform specific configuration for the
target node; and,
deploying the transformed platform specific
configuration onto the target node.

Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 22, 23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2002/0188701 A1, Dec. 12,
2002) and Bassett (US 2007/0016937 A1, Jan. 18, 2007). Ans. 4-9.
Appeal 2011-007389
Application 11/355,023

3

The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brown, Bassett, and Newstadt (US 2007/0107043
A1, May 10, 2007). Ans. 9-11.
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brown, Bassett, and Edmondson (US 7,191,229 B2,
Mar. 13, 2007). Ans. 11-13.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 9, 24, and 29-31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown, Bassett, Edmondson, and
Newstadt. Ans. 13-20.

ANALYSIS1
Appellants contend that Brown does not teach or suggest “a network
services protocol implementation.” App. Br. 10. In particular, Appellants
admit “Examiner relies upon the primary reference Brown alone for the
teaching of the configuration of a platform independent configuration for a
network service protocol implementation,” but contend that “[w]hereas a
‘network environment’ generically is a computer network, a ‘network
service protocol implementation’ on its face means an implementation of a
protocol for a network service--a very different concept.” Reply Br. 3-4.
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the broad
claim language, because claim 1 does not preclude a network environment.

1 Appellants focus their contentions on claim 1, allowing independent
claims 22 and 25 to stand or fall with representative claim 1. Separate
patentability is not argued for claims 3-6, 9, 23, 24, and 27-31. App. Br. 6,
15-16.
Appeal 2011-007389
Application 11/355,023

4

In addition, the Examiner provides a well-reasoned explanation, including
citations to several paragraphs of Brown, which demonstrate that Brown
teaches the network service protocol implementation limitation (Ans. 4, 20-
21 (citing Brown, ¶¶ 5, 6, 27, 40, 42, 43, and 48)). We concur with the
Examiner’s fact finding as it is supported by Brown’s disclosure.
Furthermore, Appellants do not explain why Appellants’ claimed invention
would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art, and thus, Appellants’
arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. Also, we note that while
Bassett was also used for teaching a “network services protocol
implementation” (Ans. 4, 5), any teaching regarding Bassett for the network
services protocol implementation limitation is considered cumulative.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 26, while Appellants raised
additional arguments for patentability (App. Br. 13-14), we find that the
Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and every one of those arguments
supported by sufficient evidence. Ans. 24. Therefore, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated
herein by reference. We also note our review of, and finding that,
Appellants’ Reply Brief does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
explanation on pages 24 of the Answer.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
does not provide any motivation for an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine
Brown and Bassett. See App. Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to implement the teachings of Bassett
into Brown. Brown teaches network service protocol
Appeal 2011-007389
Application 11/355,023

5

implementation such as TCP/IP (Brown, paragraphs 5 and 40),
LAN and WAN (Brown, paragraph 5) Basset also teaches
network service protocol implementation, specifically, network
security service protocol implementation for the benefit of
remote network security configuration through automation
(Bassett, paragraph 3-4) in the analogous art of network
management.

Ans. 23 (emphasis ours).
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The Court further instructs that:
[o]ften it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; . . . and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason for combining the known elements in a the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue.

Id. at 418.
Additionally, the Court instructs that:
[r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness . . . . [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Appeal 2011-007389
Application 11/355,023

6

We find that at the time of the invention it would have been within the
ordinarily skilled artisan’s technical grasp, to fit the teachings of Brown and
Bassett (including established knowledge in the art) together like pieces of a
puzzle to predictably result in the disputed limitations. We conclude the
proffered combination of Brown and Bassett would predictably result in a
network security service protocol implemented for the benefit of remote
network security configuration through automation. See, e.g., Ans. 23. We
note Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 5), do not explain why the
Examiner’s motivational statement does not suffice as an articulated reason
with a rational underpinning to support the proffered combination, and thus,
these arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.
Therefore, in the absence of sufficient rebuttal evidence or argument
to persuade us otherwise, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying
reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-6, 9, and 22-31.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 9, and 22-31 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2011-007389
Application 11/355,023

7

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 9, and 22-31 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc