Ex Parte Stimac

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2010

10284434 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL D. STIMAC
____________

Appeal 2009-007092
Application 10/284,434
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: June 29, 2010
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-31, which are all of the pending claims in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-007092
Application 10/284,434

2

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method and system for performing
network merge testing. The method gathers configuration information from
at least two networks. The configuration information includes zone names
and memberships; domain and port names; security settings; inter-op modes;
and long distance modes. The method compares the configuration
information and displays a report that indicates whether an attempted merge
of the at least two networks would succeed. If the report identifies conflicts
between the network configurations, the method may then resolve the
conflicts. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A network merge testing method that comprises:
gathering configuration information from at least two actual
networks;
comparing the configuration information; and
displaying a report that indicates whether an attempted merge
of the at least two networks would succeed.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lewis (US 6,243,747 B1).

Appeal 2009-007092
Application 10/284,434

3
Claim Groupings
In view of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Lewis
discloses all the limitations of claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Lewis discloses an apparatus and method for defining and
enforcing policies for configuration management in communications
networks. The apparatus and method perform monitoring parameters that
govern the operational characteristics of a network device. A database of
models is provided, each model representing an associated network device
and including attribute values for the parameters of the associated network
device. Additionally, a method and apparatus is provided that defines
network groups, defines network policies for groups, determines conflicts,
and resolves conflicts among groups and devices. Title; Abstract.
2. Configuration management in communications networks is the
task of keeping an inventory of network devices, knowing the configuration
of each device, resetting or updating configurations as the need arises, and
scheduling configuration changes. A configuration is a particular setting of
device parameters that govern the operational characteristics of a network
device. In communications networks, the devices that are routinely
configured are routers, bridges and hubs, and examples of device parameters
Appeal 2009-007092
Application 10/284,434

4
include port thresholds, on/off switches, and access security. Col. 1, ll. 19-
32.
3. Configuration management may include identifying,
controlling and monitoring managed devices that make up a communications
network. A managed device is any device that is modeled in a network
management system. The managed devices include not only hardware
devices such as personal computers (PCS), workstations, hubs and routers,
but also software applications. As illustrated in Figure 1, a network
management system 14 continually monitors a network and maintains a
database of information about every managed device in the network. A
configuration manager 18 obtains the values of certain attributes (i.e., data
which define the characteristics of the network device being modeled) in a
desired configuration by interrogating the model of the managed device.
The configuration manager then enables a system administrator, via a user
interface (see Figure 2), to use this information to manage the device. For
example, the administrator may create new configurations, load these
configurations to devices anywhere on the network, and then verify whether
the configurations have changed. Col. 3, ll. 34-59.
4. Once a configuration record is loaded to the model, the network
management system 14 will modify the parameters of the network device to
conform to the configuration data in the model. To perform a verification,
the configuration manager first captures the actual configuration of the
model and compares each attribute/value pair in the configuration with the
current model’s actual configuration. The configuration manager may then
display the results to a user via the user interface. Col. 9, ll. 55-67.
Appeal 2009-007092
Application 10/284,434

5
5. Since a network consists of a number of devices such as
switches, hubs, routers, bridges, workstations, and printers, there are several
ways in which to characterize the devices into groups. For example, a group
may consist of network devices that are connected together in a particular
topology, such as a local area network, a metropolitan network, or a wide
area network. Col. 11, ll. 54-63.
6. A group may contain devices and groups from other levels.
Additionally, a device may be a member of several groups. Col. 12, ll. 21-
23.
7. An embodiment of the invention includes a data structure for
recording group relationships by creating associations between a group and a
device, a plurality of devices, another group, a plurality of groups, or any
combination of these. Col. 12, ll. 28-31.
8. A configuration attachment is a relationship between a
configuration record and a device. The relationship expresses that a
particular configuration record defines the configuration of the device. This
may be as a result of a desire by a system administrator, for example. An
example would be “configuration_record1 is attached to device3.” Col. 12,
ll. 60-66.
9. A configuration policy is a data structure representing a list of
configuration attachments. Col. 13, ll. 5-7.
10. As a result of a policy having several potential attachments to a
single device or group, as well as several policies being applicable to a
single device or group, it is possible that a single attribute may be defined as
having two different values. Col. 14, ll. 37-60; Figs. 3 and 11.
Appeal 2009-007092
Application 10/284,434

6
11. If an attribute is defined as having two different values, then
there is a conflict with regard to the identified attribute. Since there may be
many groups, and many policies and attachments for each group, such
conflicts may often exist, for example if a user inadvertently builds
inconsistent configuration policies. Col. 15, ll. 1-10.
12. Figure 12 shows a process for determining and resolving
conflicts using an inference engine that receives network grouping
information as well as configuration policy information. Col. 15, ll. 11-27.
13. The inference engine determines groups of which a particular
group “X” is a member. The groups are then searched to determine
applicable policies. The attachments of the applicable policies are examined
to determine which attachments may conflict due to satisfied conditions.
Col. 15, ll. 27-62; Fig. 13, steps 134, 136, 138.
14. The inference engine then determines whether a conflict exists,
resolves existing conflicts, and provides an output. The output may be user
selectable, and can include information such as a configuration notice
describing the conflicting configurations, a notice of “no action needed” if
there are no conflicts, and a configuration report that defines the state of the
network configuration. Col. 15, l. 63 to col. 16, l. 11; Fig. 13, steps 140,
142, 144.
15. The step of resolving existing conflicts as shown in Figure 13
(step 142) can be performed by user adjudication as shown in Figure 14
(step 156). Conflicting attachments are reported to a user. The user decides
the desired action. Col. 17, ll. 5-10; Fig. 14, step 156.

Appeal 2009-007092
Application 10/284,434

7
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citations omitted).

Anticipation
“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference
disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as
in the claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Lewis does not disclose any comparison of
two actual networks. App. Br. 11-12. However, Lewis describes groups,
where each group can consist of network devices that are connected together
in a particular topology, such as a local area network, a metropolitan
network, or a wide area network. FF 5. The groups described by Lewis are
therefore “actual networks” within the meaning of claim 1. Lewis also
describes an inference engine that receives network grouping information
and configuration policy information for a group “X” and the groups of
which “X” is a member. FF 11-13. Receiving network grouping
Appeal 2009-007092
Application 10/284,434

8
information and configuration policy information for groups is “gathering
configuration information from at least two actual networks” within the
meaning of claim 1.
Appellant contends that a configuration policy is a data structure.
Appellant then concludes that resolving conflicts from data structures does
not describe comparing configuration information gathered from two actual
networks. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2.
Lewis describes determining groups of which a particular group “X”
is a member, determining configuration policies that apply to group “X” and
the groups of which “X” is a member, and examining attachments of the
applicable configuration policies. FF 13. Appellant has not provided a
definition of the term “configuration information” that excludes the
configuration policy data structure disclosed by Lewis. Therefore,
“comparing the configuration information” as recited in claim 1
encompasses examining attachments of applicable configuration policies of
groups as disclosed by Lewis.
Appellant contends that reporting conflicting relationships between a
configuration record and a device does not disclose whether an attempted
merge of the at least two actual networks would succeed. App. Br. 12.
However, Lewis describes providing an output to a user that includes
information such as a configuration notice describing conflicting
configurations or a notice of “no action needed” if there are no conflicts. FF
14, 15. Appellant has not provided evidence or persuasive argument to
distinguish “displaying a report that indicates whether an attempted merge of
the at least two networks would succeed” as recited in claim 1 from
Appeal 2009-007092
Application 10/284,434

9
providing a notice of conflicting configurations or a notice of no conflicts as
disclosed by Lewis.
Appellant has not presented arguments for separate patentability of
claims 2-31. We thus sustain the § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-31.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Lewis
discloses all the limitations of claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lewis 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc

Conley Rose, P.C.
P.O. Box 3267
Houston TX 77253-3267