Ex Parte Strassner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2013

12236609 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013)

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.
12/236,609 09/24/2008 John Strassner AUS920105008US3 8244
50170 7590 12/31/2013
IBM CORP. (WIP)
c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
17304 PRESTON ROAD
SUITE 200
DALLAS, TX 75252
EXAMINER
RUBIN, BLAKE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2013 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 JOHN STRASSNER
1

____________________

Appeal 2011-007800
Application 12/236,609
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-16, all pending claims in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1
The Real Party in Interest is International Business Machines Corp. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-007800
Application 12/236,609

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2

The Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to network device management and, in
particular, to systems and methods for maintaining and/or generating
network device configurations. See Spec., ¶ [0002].
Exemplary Claims
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added):
1. A network device management system,
comprising:
a storage facility configured to store a plurality of
configuration knowledge instances and a plurality of
configuration data instances for each of a plurality of network
devices,
wherein each configuration knowledge instance
comprises logical and physical feature information of a network
device but does not specify a particular configuration of the
network device,
wherein each configuration data instance for each
network device is derived from a corresponding configuration
knowledge instance for the network device, and
wherein each configuration knowledge instance
comprises a plurality of layers comprising

2
Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Dec. 10, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 1, 2011); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 1, 2011); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed
Aug. 6, 2010); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 15, 2010).
Appeal 2011-007800
Application 12/236,609

3
a device family layer representing a family of
network devices that all share one or more common features,
a device layer representing a specific network
device within the family of network devices,
a physical layer representing a physical feature of
the specific network device and
a logical layer representing a logical feature of the
specific network device; and
an assembler in communication with the storage facility,
the assembler being capable of accessing the plurality of
configuration knowledge instances and the plurality of
configuration data instances and assembling a device
configuration from a selected one or more configuration
knowledge instances and a selected one or more configuration
data instances.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Schoening US 6,226,788 B1 May 1, 2001
Lewis US 6,243,747 B1 June 5, 2001
Rejection on Appeal
Claim 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lewis and Schoening. Ans. 3.
ISSUE
Appellant argues (App. Br. 4-7; Reply Br. 2-5) that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
Appeal 2011-007800
Application 12/236,609

4
cited prior art combination is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Lewis and
Schoening teaches or suggests the limitations of:
[W]herein each configuration knowledge instance
comprises a plurality of layers comprising a device family layer
representing a family of network devices that all share one or
more common features, a device layer representing a specific
network device within the family of network devices, a physical
layer representing a physical feature of the specific network
device, and a logical layer representing a logical feature of the
specific network device;
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We only consider those arguments actually made by Appellant in
reaching this decision, and we do not consider arguments which Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so that any such
arguments are deemed to be waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions with respect to claim 1, and
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 and
rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Arguments. However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2011-007800
Application 12/236,609

5
Appellant admits Lewis teaches template-based configuration
generation (App. Br. 5), but contends:
Lewis does not teach that the template or configuration
comprises a plurality of layers comprising a device family layer
representing a family of network devices that all share one or
more common features, a device layer representing a specific
network device within the family of network devices, a physical
layer representing a physical feature of the specific network
device, and a logical layer representing a logical feature of the
specific network device, as recited in claim 1.
Id. Appellant further contends Lewis’ template and configuration merely
provide a list of attributes with no mention of any layers, and particularly
does not mention layers of the recited configuration knowledge instance, i.e.,
“a device family layer . . . a device layer . . . a physical layer . . . and a
logical layer,” as required by claim 1. Id.
We construe the word “layer,” as recited in the claims in light of
Appellant’s Specification. Appellant’s Specification indicates the recited
“configuration knowledge” is an abstraction which is further defined by
various abstraction layers. See Spec., ¶ [0016]. We find these various
abstraction layers merely provide data or information that relate to software
abstractions of specific device types, a specific device, or physical/logical
capabilities according to a device’s features. See Spec., ¶¶ [0016]-[0018].
Therefore, in construing claim 1, we find Appellant’s recitation of “a
plurality of layers comprising ,” merely describes data or information, i.e.,
each of the claimed layers corresponds to different data.
Appellant’s claim 1 further recites “an assembler in communication
with the storage facility . . . capable of accessing the plurality of
Appeal 2011-007800
Application 12/236,609

6
configuration knowledge instances and the plurality of configuration data
instances and assembling a device configuration from a selected one or more
configuration knowledge instances and a selected one or more configuration
data instances.” Thus, we find the data or information in each of the claimed
layers is used by the recited assembler to assemble a device configuration,
i.e., the data in the variously recited layers constitutes functional descriptive
material. Appellant contends that none of Lewis’ disclosure teaches
“anything regarding the layers recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 5. We disagree.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Lewis teaches a configuration
management system that discloses use of a variety of layers, both logical and
physical, which allow the user to configure the network, either manually or
automatically with templates. Ans. 9-10 (citing Lewis, col. 7:42-45; col.
8:26-33; col. 15:28-39 and 48-53; and Fig. 5).
Claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation,
as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking into account
whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard, we find Lewis describes the use of various types of
information which teach or suggest the recited plurality of layers, both
physical and logical. See Lewis, col. 3:61-67; col. 4:3-5; col. 5:5-9; and
col. 11:64-66. Based upon Appellant’s Specification, cited supra, the
variously recited abstraction layers merely provide data or information that
relate to software abstractions of specific device types, a specific device, or
physical/logical capabilities according to a device’s features.
Appeal 2011-007800
Application 12/236,609

7
While Appellant’s claim 1 recites use of various types of data to
assemble a device configuration, it does not, however, recite a hierarchical
data structure related to the layers, as Appellant appears to suggest by
primary reliance in their arguments upon “the particular arrangement of
layers of a configuration knowledge instance as set forth in claim 1.” App.
Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. However, we do not import these limitations into the
claims from the Specification, SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc.,
358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Thus, we find the Examiner has identified corresponding information
in Lewis, cited above, that teaches the recited plurality of layers. We further
find Lewis’ teaching of the Spectrum
TM
network management system
disclosed in Lewis (col. 6 et seq.) meets the assembler limitation of claim 1.
Further, the Examiner cites Schoening (App. Br. 4-5, 10-11) as
teaching “assembling a device configuration from a selected one or more
configuration knowledge instances and a selected one or more configuration
data instances,” as also recited in claim 1. In particular, the Examiner
asserts Schoening teaches this limitation by its disclosure of “the
instantiation of one or more device-specific Service Module Function classes
is carried out . . . [and the asynchronous network interface (ANI)] handles a
particular device 102 in response to a client request or an internal request,
such as the discovery of a new object in the network, by creating a Container
Object . . . associating default mapping code . . . [and] instantiating certain
Service Module Functions . . . [such that] ANI then initiates discovery of
that device 102.” See Schoening, col. 14:26-34.
Appeal 2011-007800
Application 12/236,609

8
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends Schoening’s teachings are
irrelevant to their argument, and that the Examiner has not provided “any
explanation or technical reasoning to rebut Appellant’s argument other than
to cite a different portion of the reference with no explanation as to why it
teaches the claim feature.” Reply Br. 5.
We disagree with Appellant, and note the Examiner has made findings
of fact with respect to Schoening’s teachings (Ans. 4 and 10-11), findings
which Appellant does not rebut, except to allege the Examiner has not
“provide[d] any explanation or technical reasoning to rebut Appellant’s
argument other than to cite a different portion of the reference with no
explanation as to why it teaches the claim feature.” Reply Br. 5. We find
the Examiner’s findings and Response to Arguments cited above has shifted
the burden to Appellant, and Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner’s findings.
Accordingly, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s reading of the claim
limitations onto the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
unpatentability rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We also sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of dependent
claims 2, 4, 5, and 13-16, not separately argued.
Further, while Appellant raised additional arguments for patentability
of dependent claims 3 and 6-12, rejected on the same basis as claim 1, (App.
Br. 7-12), we find that the Examiner has rebutted each of those arguments in
the Answer by a preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 5-8 and 11-14.
Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning,
Appeal 2011-007800
Application 12/236,609

9
which we incorporate herein by reference, so that we also find no reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 6-12.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, and given the collective teachings of the
references, the Examiner did not err with respect to the unpatentability
rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the prior art
combination of record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-16.
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

kis