Ex Parte Molnar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2013

10500992 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GERGELY MOLNAR
____________________

Appeal 2010-009136
Application 10/500,992
Technology Center 3600

____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, HUNG H. BUI, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

Per curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-009136
Application 10/500,992

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 12-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1-11 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a method and
apparatus for managing configuration of a network in a management center
(Abstract; Spec. 1, ll. 4-5).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 12 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
12. A method for managing configuration of a network in a
management centre, said network having a plurality of target
objects, said method comprising:
elaborating a model of the network to be managed;
identifying a plurality of target objects to be configured
in the network;
validating the changes to be made upon configuration of
said plurality of target objects; and, if all changes have been
validated:
finding a configuration sequence of target routers
associated with said target objects that provides continuous
connectivity to said management centre; and
configuring each of said target routers.

References
Schroder US 7,107,329 B1 Sep. 12, 2006
Hanselmann US 7,116,634 B1 Oct. 3, 2006

Appeal 2010-009136
Application 10/500,992

3
Rejection
Claims 12-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schroder and Hanselmann. (Ans. 3-5.)

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 12-21
Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Schroder and
Hanselmann, because (i) neither Schroder nor Hanselmann teaches “finding
a configuration sequence of target routers . . . ” (App. Br. 9-10), and
(ii) Schroder teaches away from finding a configuration sequence of target
routers (App. Br. 9). Specifically, Appellant contends Schroder does not
teach a management center, and, instead, “is only concerned with forwarding
traffic for a single router while that single router receives a software
upgrade” (App. Br. 9). Further, according to Appellant, Hanselmann
discloses a sequence number associated with data, where the sequence
number of the data is used by an active router and a standby router to
recover a data connection – but a sequence number of the data is not the
claimed configuration sequence of target routers (App. Br. 10). In addition,
Appellant argues Hanselmann discloses a host forwards traffic to a virtual
router (id.).
Appellant also argues Schroder teaches away from finding a
configuration sequence of target routers since Schroder is only concerned
with swapping old software for new software in a router without disrupting
traffic flowing through that single router (App. Br. 9).

Appeal 2010-009136
Application 10/500,992

4
Issue 1a: Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Schroder and Hanselmann teaches or suggests “finding a configuration
sequence of target routers associated with said target objects that provides
continuous connectivity to said management centre,” as recited in claim 12?
Issue 1b: Has the Examiner erred in finding Schroder does not teach
away from the claimed invention?

ANALYSIS
We initially note the Examiner relies on Hanselmann – not Schroeder
– as teaching the limitation “finding a configuration sequence of target
routers associated with said target objects that provides continuous
connectivity to said management centre” (Ans. 4 and 6). Therefore, we are
not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Schroder does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitation.
With respect to Hanselmann, we agree with the Examiner’s findings
and conclusion and adopt them as our own (Ans. 6). We emphasize
Appellant has not explicitly defined “configuration sequence.” Thus, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s interpretation and, as a result, in the
Examiner’s finding that Hanselmann teaches or suggests the host finds a
configuration sequence of target routers so that connectivity is maintained
(id.).
We are further not persuaded Schroder teaches away from finding a
configuration sequence of target routers. A reference teaches away when a
skilled artisan, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path taken by Appellants. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990
Appeal 2010-009136
Application 10/500,992

5
(Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, Appellant fails to point to any explicit language in
Schroder that would discourage an ordinarily skilled artisan from including
the teachings of Hanselmann or that would lead an ordinarily skilled artisan
in a direction divergent from the path taken by Appellant. Therefore, we are
not persuaded Schroder teaches away from the claimed invention.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Schroder and Hanselmann teaches or suggests “finding a
configuration sequence of target routers associated with said target objects
that provides continuous connectivity to said management centre” as recited
in claim 12 and claims 13-21, not separately argued. Therefore, the
Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 12-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Schroder and Hanselmann.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schroder and Hanselmann 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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

ELD