Ex Parte Suriyanarayanan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

13872934 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
13/872,934 04/29/2013 Muthukumar Suriyanarayanan 83138314 5451
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
DUONG, FRANK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MUTHUKUMAR SURIY ANARA Y AN AN,
SRIKANTH NATARAJAN, and NITHIN JOSE
Appeal 2016-004633
Application 13/872,934
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
twice rejecting claims 1—20, all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to monitoring quality of
service in networks using network probes, and more particularly to “target
failure based Root Cause Analysis (RCA) of network probe failures in a
Appeal 2016-004633
Application 13/872,934
computer network to identify the causal problem” (Spec. 110; see Spec.
17).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of performing a target failure based root cause
analysis of network probe failures in a computer network, comprising:
determining, by a processor of a computing device,
whether all of a plurality of network probes deployed at different
locations in the computer network to monitor traffic between a
specific source network node and a destination network node have
failed; and
identifying a problem in the computer network based on
said determination.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
R1. Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 3; see Ans. 2.
R2. Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Khanna et al. (US 8,661,295 Bl, Feb. 25, 2014). Final
Act. 5; see Ans. 3.
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal 2016-004633
Application 13/872,934
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 112, first paragraph, written description
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that claims 1—20 fail to
comply with the written description requirement?
The Examiner finds the original disclosure provides that “all network
probes between the source node and the destination node are used in making
a determination,” but not the claimed determination using “all of a plurality
of network probes deployed at different locations in the computer network to
monitor traffic between a specific source network node and a destination
network node,” as recited in claim 1.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must
reasonably convey to skilled artisans that Appellants possessed the claimed
invention as of the filing date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598
F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (enbanc). However, the written
description requirement under § 112 does not demand (1) any particular
form of disclosure, or that (2) the Specification recite the claimed invention
verbatim, although a description that merely renders the invention obvious
does not satisfy the requirement. Ariad at 1352 (citations omitted).
Appellants contend Appellants’ Figure 1 “shows a plurality of
network probes (114, 116, 118, and 120) deployed at different locations in
the network (at network nodes 102, 104, and 108)” as well as “a network
management module 130 to monitor the network nodes 102, 104, 106 and
108” (App. Br. 6). We agree with Appellants.
For example, Appellants’ Specification, as noted by Appellants,
describes “monitoring may be performed by discovering network probes
(such as 114, 116 and 118) configured on network devices such as network
3
Appeal 2016-004633
Application 13/872,934
nodes 102, 104, 106 and 108” and determining “whether all network probes
have failed between a specific source network node and a destination
network node” (Spec. 115; see App. Br. 6—7), and shows network probes
114, 116, 118 and 120 distributed over network nodes 102, 104 and 108 (see
Spec. Fig. 1). In other words, Appellants’ Specification provides disclosure
of nodes that may act as source nodes and destination nodes, among which
the network probes are distributed.
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that Appellants’ Specification
provides adequate written description of the claimed “plurality of network
probes deployed at different locations in the computer network to monitor
traffic between a specific source network node and a destination network
node.”
Accordingly, the rejection R1 of independent claim 1 and
commensurate independent claims 10 and 15, as well as dependent claims
2—9, 11—14, and 16—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement, is reversed.
Rejection under § 102 over Khanna
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Khanna describes
“determining, . . . whether all of a plurality of network probes . . . have
failed,” as recited in claim 1 ?
Appellants contend Khanna’s “failure detection system 102... does
not determine whether ‘all’ of the agents or probes deployed at different
locations to monitor the traffic between a source node and a destination node
have failed” (App. Br. 9, 10).
4
Appeal 2016-004633
Application 13/872,934
However, claim 1 does not recite determining that “all of a plurality
of network probes deployed at different locations in the computer network to
monitor traffic between a specific source network node and a destination
network node have failed.” Rather, claim 1 recites “determining... whether
all of a plurality of network probes . . . have failed” (see claim 1) (emphasis
added). We find the scope of this limitation, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, encompasses determining whether or not all network probes
have failed, which includes monitoring a system to detect if any failure,
including all probes failing, less than all probes failing, and no probes
failing. Thus, Appellants’ contention, which suggests that “all” probes must
be examined for failure, is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Khanna teaches
“determining the reachability failures between a source node and a
destination node using Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) probes”
(Ans. 5).
For example, Khanna discloses:
FIGS. 2A and 2B also illustrate agents A4-A7 associated with
nodes N4-N7. Each of the nodes in the network may be
associated with an agent... In various aspects, the network path
monitoring and cause of failure detection system 102 selects
certain nodes in the network 130 to act as transmitters of
messages to other nodes in the network 130 in order to test the
reachability of those other nodes. The messages sent to the other
nodes may consist of content-less messages .... The agent
associated with each of the nodes may be used to transmit the
content-less messages, to respond to the messages sent from
transmitters, and also to collect responses received....
At block 406, the aggregation server 112 performs failure
detection. Using the network topology gathered at block 302 of
the control and collection service routine 300, the aggregation
service 112 may iterate through all the links in the network
5
Appeal 2016-004633
Application 13/872,934
topology in order to compute a percentage of links and nodes
which indicate a failure. The links and nodes may be sorted by
failure percentage in order to isolate a link or node experiencing
performance issues such as packet latency or loss, jitter, or the
like . . .
(Khanna col. 4,11. 12—29, col. 7,11. 28—36, emphases added). In other
words, Khanna provides a system with agents associated with nodes that
transmit messages to other nodes through links and determines whether or
not any links or nodes, including all, less than all, or none, have failed.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that
Khanna does not describe determining whether or not all of the network
probes, nodes, or links, have failed.
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s § 102(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as
well as commensurate independent claims 10 and 15, and dependent claims
2—8, 11—14, 16—18, and 20, not separately argued, is sustained (see App. Br.
11).
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that Khanna describes
“wherein the identified problem includes that the specific service type is
unavailable between the source site and the destination site,” as recited in
claim 9?
Appellants contend that “Khanna determines whether a packet sent
from a source node reaches a destination node” and “does not determine
whether a specific service type is not available between the source node and
the destination node” (App. Br. 12). We disagree with Appellants.
6
Appeal 2016-004633
Application 13/872,934
Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Khanna describes a
ping utility using ICMP packets, which include features of unreachability
(see Ans. 7).
For example, Khanna discloses:
In some embodiments, the transmitters may use User Datagram
Protocol (UDP) packets to send the content-less messages. In
other embodiments, Transmission Control Protocol (TCP),
Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP), Infmiband (IB), or
other types of packets may be used . . .
(Khanna col. 4,11. 21—25). Khanna further provides a system with agents
associated with nodes that transmit messages to other nodes through links
and determines whether links or nodes have failed (see Khanna col. 4,11. 12—
29, col. 7,11. 28—36). In other words, Khanna describes the performance of
failure detection using a variety of service types to detect failed nodes and
links. Thus, detection of failure would include an indication that the utilized
service is unavailable on failed links and between failed nodes.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that
Khanna does not describe determining that a service type is unavailable
between nodes. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Khanna’s
determination of failed nodes and links using service types describes “the
identified problem includes that the specific service type is unavailable
between the source site and the destination site,” as recited in claim 9.
For at least these reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 9, as well as
commensurate claim 19, not separately argued, is sustained (see App. Br.
11-12).
7
Appeal 2016-004633
Application 13/872,934
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 112(a) of pre-AIA § 112, first
paragraph, rejection R1 of claims 1—20.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(a)(1) rejection R2 of claims 1—20.
Because at least one rejection encompassing all claims on appeal is
affirmed, the decision of the Examiner 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8