Ex Parte Levy et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 24, 2011

10410941 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2011)

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.
10/410,941 04/09/2003 Omer Levy 110349-131858 6727
31817 7590 01/24/2011
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900
1211 S.W. FIFTH AVE.
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
TANG, KAREN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte OMER LEVY, GIDI ETZION, and DAN ABRAMSKY
____________________

Appeal 2009-0060701
Application 10/410,941
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 Filed April 9, 2003. The real party in interest is Intel Corp. (App. Br. 1.)
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-006070
Application 10/410,941

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-29. (App. Br. 2.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and apparatus for allowing a network
management console (102) to perform a soft system recovery from a system
failure that occurred during a management communication session with a
remote client (104). In particular, the management console is able to re-
establish communication with the client using the open-session. (Fig. 1,
spec. 6, ll. 1-11.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:

a communication interface to facilitate communication
with one or more managed remote clients; and

a management console operationally coupled to the
communication interface, to support a secure remote
management protocol for securely managing the remote clients,
including management session creation logic to create a
management session for secure communication with a managed
remote client, with the management session creation logic
enhanced to be able to soft recover and re-establish a
management session with a managed remote client having a
Appeal 2009-006070
Application 10/410,941

3
prior open management session after a system failure of the
apparatus, where at the time, secure management
communication with the managed remote client is possible only
under the prior open management session.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Lambert US 2001/0007128 A1 Jul. 5, 2001
Bergsten US 2002/0152429 A1 Oct. 17, 2002
Lindsay US 2003/0028633 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), found in instant
Specification.

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 11, 20, 21, 25 and 26 stand rejected as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lindsay,
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Bergsten.
2. Claims 3-10, 12-19, 22-24, and 27-29 stand rejected as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Lindsay,
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Bergsten and Lambert.

Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the combination of Lindsay, AAPA and
Bergstein does not teach a management session logic for performing a soft-
Appeal 2009-006070
Application 10/410,941

4
recovery and for re-establishing a management session with a remote client
having a prior open management session after a system failure at which time
communication with the client is only possible under the prior open session,
as recited in independent claim 1. (App Br. 5-8, Reply Br. 2-3.) In
particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on the AAPA is
misguided since the cited portion of the Specification being relied upon
simply does not teach or even suggest soft recovery.

Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that AAPA’s disclosure of allowing only one
communication session after a system failure wherein a management console
is unable to communicate with a client inherently teaches a soft recovery as
recited in independent claim 1. (Ans. 10-11.)

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that AAPA
inherently teaches a management session logic for performing a soft-
recovery and for re-establishing a management session with a remote client
having a prior open management session after a system failure at which time
communication with the client was only possible under the prior open
session, as recited in independent claim 1?

Appeal 2009-006070
Application 10/410,941

5
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
AAPA
Appellants’ Specification states the following:
As a result, if a management console encounters a system
failure (also referred to as a system crash or simply crash), and
loses the current relevant session data of a management session
of a managed client, the management console is unable to
further communicate with the managed client. Since the
session closure is an operation, which RSP defines to be
authenticated communication, the session cannot be closed.
Establishment of a new session in parallel is not an option,
since as earlier described, typically a managed client in support
of RMCP, supports only one open management session. (Spec.
2-3.)

IV. ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a management session logic
for performing a soft-recovery and for re-establishing a management session
with a remote client having a prior open management session after a system
failure at which time communication with the client is only possible under
the prior open session.
As set forth in the Findings of Fact section, AAPA discloses that
following a system crash, the management console is unable to communicate
with the client, the communication session remains open, and no other
session is allowed. We do not agree with the Examiner that the fact no other
Appeal 2009-006070
Application 10/410,941

6
session is allowed after the system crash implies or inherently teaches that
the management console must re-establishing the management session with
the client through soft recovery. (Ans. 10.) We agree with Appellants that
rebooting the client system is another viable option for closing the open
session to thereby establish a new session. (Reply Br. 2.) As a result, the
Examiner’s inherency theory is untenable. Since Appellants have shown at
least one error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we need not address
Appellants’ other arguments. It therefore follows that Appellants have
shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Lindsay,
AAPA and Bergstein renders claim 1 unpatentable.
Since claims 2-29 recite the limitations of claim 1 discussed above,
we find that Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims for the same reasons set forth above.

V. SUMMARY
Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable. We therefore
reverse the rejections set forth above.

REVERSED

Vsh

Appeal 2009-006070
Application 10/410,941

7
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900
1211 S.W. FIFTH AVE.
PORTLAND OR 97204