Ex Parte Rao

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2015

11871867 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BINDU RAMA RAO
____________

Appeal 2012-010465
Application 11/871,867
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “remote management of
electronic devices” (Spec. ¶ 11).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. An electronic device comprising:
Appeal 2012-010465
Application 11/871,867

2
an interface for communicating with at least one remote
server; and
one or more processors operably coupled to the interface
and to memory, the one or more processors operable to, at least:
create at least one device management object in a device
management tree in memory of the electronic device, wherein a
value of the at least one device management object is
representative of a level of performance of a layer of a data
communication protocol;
establish a session of communication between the
electronic device and the at least one remote server, using the
data communication protocol;
receive, during the communication session, a device
management message according to a device management
protocol standard from the at least one remote server, the device
management message accessing the value of the at least one
device management object; and
send the value of the at least one device management
object to the at least one remote server;
wherein the electronic device is a mobile electronic
device.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–7 and 9–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wright (US 7,353,533 B2, Apr. 1, 2008) and
Kim (US 2006/0026228 A1, Feb. 2, 2006). Ans. 5–11
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wright, Kim, and Little (US 2004/0110497 A1,
June 10, 2004). Ans. 11.

Appeal 2012-010465
Application 11/871,867

3
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 7–15), the
principal and dispositive issue as to whether the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–20 turns on whether “probe” as taught in Wright is equivalent to
“message” as recited in independent claims 1 and 15.1
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
The Examiner finds that in telecom a “probe is an action taken or an
object used for the purpose of learning something about the state of the
network,” and cites to a web link definition in
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/probe (Feb. 1998). Final Act.
10–11.
Appellant contends that the message according to an example on this
web link might be a ping, i.e., an empty message and thus is different from
the claimed “device management message accessing the value of the at least
one device management object.” Br. 8–9. We do not agree.
The Specification does not define device management message but
provides the following context on page 29: “In a representative embodiment
of the present invention, the device management message may be

1 No separate patentability has been argued for claims 2–8, 10–14, and 16–
20. Br. 11, 14–15.
Appeal 2012-010465
Application 11/871,867

4
communicated to the electronic device using, for example, a short message
service (SMS) protocol over a wireless communication link . . . .” Spec.
¶ 59.
The Examiner finds Wright discloses:
The remote diagnostics module 224 may also probe a
particular client to verify its status. For example, client
configuration information may be retrieved such as the current
version of the security policy software components on the client
device, the current policy settings on the device, and attributes
in accordance with those settings, for example, which ports are
blocked. This information may be stored for later assistance in a
diagnostics situation or for use with a current diagnostics
situation.
Wright, col. 9, ll. 31–41 (emphasis ours).
In other words, Wright teaches a probe that retrieves configuration
information such as security policy software, policy settings, and attributes
of the settings.
We agree with the Examiner that, in light of Appellant’s
Specification, the claimed device management message encompasses
Wright’s probe because “a ‘probe’ is a message which may contain an object
to fetch information on a targeted device in a network.” Final Act. 10.
Furthermore, Appellants have not explained how the configuration
information retrieved by Wright’s probe is different from the value as recited
in “the device management message accessing the value of the at least one
device management object” of claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 9, while Appellant raised additional
arguments for patentability (Br. 11–14), we find that in the Answer the
Examiner has rebutted with sufficient evidence each and every one of those
arguments. Ans. 9–11.
Appeal 2012-010465
Application 11/871,867

5
We observe that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut such findings
including the Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s arguments.
Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 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