Ex Parte Sriram

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 15, 2015

12592416 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2015)

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.
12/592,416 11/23/2009 Sundar Sriram LUC-820/Sriram 3 7629
47382 7590 01/15/2015
Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC
One N. LaSalle Street
44th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
EXAMINER
NG, CHRISTINE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2464
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2015 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SUNDAR SRIRAM
____________

Appeal 2012-010735
Application 12/592,416
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1–20.
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-010735
Application 12/592,416

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to maintaining network availability
in telecommunications networks using key performance indicators. Spec.
¶ 1. Claim 1, which is an illustrative independent claim, recites:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a network node configured to
receive telecommunications network measurements from
one or more network elements in a radio access network;
calculate key performance indicator (KPI) measurements
from the telecommunications network measurements; and
perform system recovery actions based on the calculated
KPI measurements.

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–3, 6–8, 15–17, 19, and 20 stand rejected as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Di Palma
(US 7,464,294 B2; published Dec. 9, 2008) (hereinafter “Di Palma ’294”)
and Daurensan (US 2009/0132691 A1; published May 21, 2009). Ans. 5–
13.
Claims 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 18 stand rejected as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Di Palma ’294,
Daurensan, and Di Palma (US 7,130,770 B2; issued Oct. 31, 2006)
(hereinafter “Di Palma ’770). Ans. 13–18.
Claim 5 stands rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Di Palma ’294, Daurensan, and Geffen
(US 2011/0007889 A1; published Jan. 13, 2011). Ans. 18.
Appeal 2012-010735
Application 12/592,416

3
Claims 11 and 14 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Di Palma ’294, Daurensan, Di
Palma ’770, and Geffen. Ans. 19–20.

ISSUES
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue: Whether
it is proper to combine the agent of Di Palma ’294 with the OMC
(“Operation and Maintenance Center”) node of Daurensan to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of
Appellant’s contentions. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions that the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 are improper.
Claim 1 recites “a network node configured to receive
telecommunications network measurements from one or more network
elements in a radio access network.” Appellant contends the combination of
Di Palma ’294 and Daurensan does not teach or suggest this limitation of
claim 1. However, Appellant does not present any arguments regarding
elements missing from the combination of references. Instead, Appellant
argues the combination would not result in a properly functioning system
because the references use different techniques to generate performance
parameters. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant further argues the proposed
combination is improper because the network node elements in the
references are not equivalent. Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appeal 2012-010735
Application 12/592,416

4
The Examiner finds Di Palma ’294 teaches a network node (agent)
that receives network measurements and calculates key performance
measurements. Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds Daurensan teaches a
network node (OMC) that receives network measurements from network
elements in a radio access network. Ans. 6. The Examiner makes clear that
Daurensan is relied upon solely for teaching receiving network
measurements from elements in a radio access network. Ans. 20–21. The
Examiner finds the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Di
Palma ’294 with Daurensan to collect network measurements from various
network elements. Ans. 6. Furthermore, the Examiner provides a
comprehensive response to Appellant’s arguments the combination is
improper and finds Di Palma ’294 and Daurensan both teach determining
performance indicators from network parameters, are both in analogous
fields, and the agent of Di Palma ’294 is equivalent with the OMC of
Daurensan. Ans. 21–22.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions that
combining the teachings of Di Palma ’294 and Daurensan would have been
within the ability of the skilled artisan. We are not persuaded the
combination is improper based on unsupported attorney argument the
combined network node would not be a properly functioning system.
1
We
are also not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments the references cannot be
combined because the node in Di Palma ’294 uses a different method to
produce performance parameters than the node in Daurensan.

1
Attorney argument is not the kind of factual evidence that is required to
rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2012-010735
Application 12/592,416

5
In particular, we note all of the features of one reference need not be
bodily incorporated into the other, but consideration should be given to what
the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and
the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). The artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one
prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent
judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence that one skilled in
the art would be dissuaded from modifying the teachings of Di Palma ‘294
to receive network measurements from elements in a radio access network
as taught by Daurensan merely because each uses different techniques to
produce performance parameters.
We find the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments to be
reasonable and persuasive of the propriety of the asserted combination.
Therefore, in the absence of sufficient rebuttal evidence or argument to
persuade us of error, we find no error in the combination of the agent of Di
Palma ’294 with the OMC node of Daurensan.
For the reasons discussed supra, Appellant fails to persuade us of
error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 8 and 15, which
were argued relying on the arguments made for claim 1 (Appeal Br. 8); and
(3) claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20, which depend directly or indirectly from
one of claims 1, 8, and 15 and which were not separately argued with
specificity. (Appeal Br. 8–10).

Appeal 2012-010735
Application 12/592,416

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are 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).

AFFIRMED

kis