Ex Parte Sridhar et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 201411116032 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte S. SRIDHAR, SHAMIKA S. NAIK, THURMAN O. PYLANT, MICHAEL C. RIESER, STEVEN D. WOODCOCK, STUART D. ANDER, PALANISAMY A. GOUNDER, GUY BRIGGS, ASHISH RAJPUT, LALIT PANT, and MICHAEL G. CHRISTIANSEN ____________ Appeal 2011-010650 Application 11/116,032 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010650 Application 11/116,032 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-51. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of specifying service level criteria, comprising: obtaining a file transfer log file from a first network entity; obtaining file transfer metadata from the file transfer log file, wherein the file transfer metadata corresponds to a subset of a plurality of file transfer events between the first network entity and a second network entity, the subset of the plurality of file transfer events scheduled to recur at a recurring scheduled time; generating a file transfer monitoring criterion based on the file transfer metadata, wherein the file transfer monitoring criterion is uniquely associated with the subset of the plurality of file transfer events to selectively monitor the subset of the plurality of file transfer events between the first network entity and the second network entity at a subsequent instance of the recurring scheduled time; and automatically updating service level criteria associated with the subset of the plurality of file transfer events based on the file transfer monitoring criterion. Appellants appeal the following rejection: 1. Claims 1-51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Laye (US 2003/0120771 A1; pub. Jun. 26, 2003) and McKinnon, III (US 2002/0003806 A1; pub. Jan. 10, 2002) (hereinafter “McKinnon”). Appeal 2011-010650 Application 11/116,032 3 ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Laye does not disclose automatically updating service level criteria associated with the subset of the plurality of file transfer events based on the file transfer monitoring criteria? Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Laye does not disclose identifying a priority level of a data transfer event based on a transfer event priority list? FACTUAL FINDINGS The Examiner relies on Laye at paragraph [0058] for teaching automatically updating the service level criteria based on the file transfer monitoring criteria. Laye discloses that the service model defines objectives for each parameter, and these objectives may take the form of a desired value or threshold (para. [0057]). Each objective has a specified action that is performed when a threshold is crossed in a given direction or a desired value is achieved or lost. The action can be a warning of some sort or it may be some other action (para. [0058]). Laye gives the following examples of other actions that may be performed based on the crossing of a threshold or the achievement or loss of a desired value: modification of traffic priorities, alterations of routing strategies, adjustment of router queue lengths, variation of transmitter power, and allocation of new resources (id.). McKinnon discloses a method of allocating access across a shared communication medium to user classes that includes the step of identifying Appeal 2011-010650 Application 11/116,032 4 recurrent periods of high network access usage based on monitoring (para. [0036]). McKinnon does not describe a priority level that indicates a priority of monitoring a data transfer event. ANALYSIS We agree with the Appellants that Laye does not disclose automatically updating service level criteria based on the file transfer monitoring criterion. Laye does not disclose updating service level criteria, but rather Laye describes actions that are taken when certain threshold and values, i.e., monitoring criteria, are met or not met. In other words, Laye does not disclose that the objectives or monitoring criteria are changed only that the meeting of or not meeting of the objectives or criteria triggers actions on the part of the system. In fact, the Examiner has not directed our attention to a disclosure in Laye of changing the objectives or monitoring criteria at all. As such, we agree with the Appellants that Laye does not disclose automatically updating service level criteria based on file transfer monitoring criterion. In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 2-30, 47, 48, and 49 because each of these claims requires automatically updating service level criteria based on the file transfer monitoring criterion. We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 31-46, 50 and 51. All of these claims require the step of or an interface for identifying a priority level of a data transfer event based on the transfer event priority list. The Examiner relies on paragraph [0058] for teaching identifying a priority level of a data transfer event wherein the priority level Appeal 2011-010650 Application 11/116,032 5 indicates a priority of monitoring the data event priority and specifically found that the disclosure of modifying traffic priorities is a teaching of identifying a priority of a data transfer event (Ans. 19). We agree with the Appellants that paragraph [0058] of Laye does not disclose identifying a priority level based on a priority list. Rather, as stated above, this paragraph is directed to actions taken when objectives are met or not met. In addition, we agree with the Appellants that McKinnon does not disclose a priority level that indicates a priority of monitoring data events. Rather, as found above, McKinnon discloses monitoring network usage and does not relate to the priority for the monitoring of data events. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation