Ex Parte Todd et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

10183894 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/183,894 06/26/2002 Charlene J. Todd P13488 9922
50890 7590 11/01/2012
Caven & Aghevli LLC
c/o CPA Global
P.O. BOX 52050
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2012 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 CHARLENE J. TODD, TODD R. LEASHER, and
NICK RAMIREZ
____________

Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-27, 29-39, and 41-49. Claims 28 and 40 have been
cancelled. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a component management framework
for high availability of telecommunications systems, which also can be used
for other types of computing, networking, and communications systems. See
Abstract; Spec. 1, 6, 9. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows, with key
disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A system, comprising:
a plurality of system components having component management
entities (CMEs) to at least monitor an operational characteristic of the
respective system components, each CME to include control logic and an
interface engine that includes one or more functions; and
a system manager, wherein the one or more interface engine functions
included in each CME are to be selectively invoked by a given CME’s
control logic to configure an interface between the system manager and the
given CME, the system manager to manage operation of and interaction
between at least a subset of the plurality of system components via the
interface based on feedback from the given CME.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Kampe US 6,691,244 B1 Feb. 10, 2004
(filed Mar. 14, 2000)
Kampe US 6,854,069 B2 Feb. 8, 2005
(filed May 2, 2001)

Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

3
The Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-27, 29-39, and 41-49 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over US 6,691,244 (the ’244 patent) and US
6,854,069 (the ’069 patent). Ans. 3-26.1

The Contentions
The Examiner finds that the ’244 patent teaches the recited limitations
of claim 1 except for explicitly teaching establishing an interface between
system components, for which the Examiner cites the ’069 patent in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3-4. More
particularly, for the limitation “control logic to configure an interface
between the system manager and the given CME,” the Examiner cites the
’244 patent for teaching control logic to configure a configuration between
the system manager and the given CME and the ’069 patent for teaching
establishing an interface between system components. Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because the ’244 patent does
not teach or suggest CMEs, including the recited interface engine functions.
App Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 4. Appellants also argue that neither the ’244
patent nor the ’069 patent teaches or suggests configuring an interface. App.
Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 4-6. Appellants further argue various other recited
limitations summarized below. App. Br. 18-27; Reply Br. 6-14.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to 1) the Appeal Brief filed November
17, 2008; 2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 19, 2009; and 3) the
Reply Brief filed April 24, 2009.
Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

4
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. In finding the ’244 patent teaches the
recited CMEs including the engine functions, the Examiner maps the recited
CMEs to the cluster membership monitors 420A-C in the ’244 patent (Ans.
3, 27). This is a finding Appellants contest (App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 4-6)
but do not persuasively rebut. First, Appellants’ arguments that the ’244
patent’s availability manager cannot be interpreted to be a CME (App. Br.
17; Reply Br. 4-5) are unavailing because the arguments are not consistent
with the Examiner’s rejection, which maps the cluster membership monitors
to the recited CMEs (Ans. 3-4, 27). Secondly, Appellants acknowledge that
the functions in the ’244 patent identified by the Examiner (Ans. 3 (citing
col. 5, ll. 37-64; col. 4, ll. 57-65; Fig. 4A)) as the recited engine functions
are associated with the cluster membership monitor 420C (App. Br. 17),
which supports the Examiner’s finding based on mapping the cluster
membership monitor to a CME (Ans. 3, 27).
Turning to whether the ’244 patent and the ’069 patent collectively
teach or suggest each CME includes an interface engine and a control logic
to configure an interface between the system manager and a CME, we begin
by construing the term “to configure an interface.” Appellants’
Specification does not explicitly define the claim term, “interface” (see
generally Spec. ¶¶ 0056, 0059-61; Figs. 4 (step 404), 6-7); therefore, we
construe the term with its plain meaning. The noun, “interface,” in this
context means “[t]he point at which a connection is made between two
Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

5
elements so that they can work with each other or exchange information.”2
The verb “configure” means “[t]o design, arrange, set up, or shape with a
view to specific applications or uses.”3 Consistent with these plain
meanings, “to configure an interface” means to set up a connection between
two elements so that they can work with each other and exchange
information for a specific application or use. This interpretation is
consistent with Appellants’ Specification which describes configuring an
interface for a component based on characteristics associated with a
component in a system where the interface configuration may including
selecting a programmatic interfaces or creating one from a collection or class
of interface metadata. Spec. ¶¶ 0056; Fig. 4 (step 404); see also App. Br. 7
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 0056; Fig. 4 (step 404) for the limitation “to configure an
interface between the system manager and the given CME”).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in finding that the
combination of the ’244 patent and the ’069 patent teaches or suggests
configuring an interface between system components. Ans. 3-4, 28. The
Examiner notes that the ’244 patent does not explicitly disclose establishing
an interface between the system components, yet the Examiner cites to
passages which we find at least suggest configuring an interface. See Ans. 4
(discussing claim 1), 9 (citing col. 7, ll. 29-50, col. 8, ll. 16-35 when
discussing a commensurate interface engine limitation in claim 13). The
Examiner relies on the ’069 patent to further support his position that
configuring an interface is known in the art.

2 MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 279 (5th ed. 2002).
3 THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 395
(3d ed. 1992).
Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

6
Appellants assert that each patent does not teach or suggest
configuring an interface because each of the patents “assume[] that an
interface already exists and/or is pre-configured.” App. Br. 17 (regarding
the ’244 patent) (emphasis omitted), 18 (regarding the ’069 patent); see also
Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “configuring an interface” necessarily forecloses
the use of existing or pre-configured interfaces. Claim 1 recites a system
claim and does not limit when or at what point the central logic configures
the interface. Moreover, in summarizing their invention, Appellants point to
a portion of the Specification indicating configuring an interface may
include selecting a programmatic interface from a set of programmatic
interfaces (see App. Br. 7 (citing Spec. 17:21-22)), which undermines
Appellants’ argument.
Appellants also argue that the ’069 patent does not disclose
configuring an interface because the relied-upon passages do not use the
term “interface.” App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 5-6. Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive, even if true, because “the test [for obviousness] is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981);
Accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (indicating that
anticipation does not require an ipsissimis verbis test).
Further, the Examiner relies on the combination of the references–
relying on the ’244 patent teaching of control logic to configure a
configuration between the system manager and the given CME with the ’069
patent teaching of establishing an interface between system components.
Ans. 3-4. For support the Examiner cites twelve passages in the ’069 patent.
Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

7
Ans. 3-4. For example, the Examiner cites the ’069 patent teaching that an
external operator can configure components to coordinate switching from
primary components to secondary components in a large network of
systems. See Ans. 4 (the ’069 patent, col. 19, l. 64 – col. 20, l. 5). This at
least suggests setting up a connection between the switched components so
that they can exchange information – that is, establishing an interface. Other
relied-on passages (see Ans. 4) teach techniques for upgrading software and
managing the versions of interfaces provided (col. 18, ll. 1-40) and
techniques for managing dynamic configuration changes during operation
(col. 7, ll. 35-43), each of which teaches or suggests establishing an
interface. This further illustrates not all the interface functions in the
combined ’244/’069 system already exist or are pre-configured.
Therefore, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in finding that the
’244 patent and the ’069 patent collectively teach or suggest control logic to
configure an interface between the system manager and a CME.

Claims 2-8 and 12
In challenging the rejection of dependent claims 2-8, Appellants refer
to their previous arguments related to claim 1. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 6.
We are not persuaded for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1. Appellants nominally argue claims 2, 3, and 6-8.
For example and concerning claim 2, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error in finding that the ’244 patent teaches the CME recited by
claim 1 and the ’244 and ’069 patents teach configuring the interface to
interface the one or more managers with the given CME for the reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

8
Appellants also argue that the ’244 patent does not teach “the
specified types of managers” recited by claim 2 and appear to argue that the
claim requires more than one type of manager must be taught or suggested
by the reference. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 6. Notably, claim 2, in reciting
“the one or more managers to include one of,” only requires one of the
specified types of managers (emphasis added). In finding that the ’244
patent teaches or suggests at least one of the specified types of managers, the
Examiner points to a portion describing how the availability policy of the
availability manager determines the proper state of each component and
when a component may be taken out of service. Col. 11, ll. 50-63. Based on
this passage and as broadly as recited, the availability manager describes, at
least, a policy manager and a configuration manager. We are therefore not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that the ’244 patent teaches
what is recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Appellants additionally assert that the ’244 patent
does not teach a CME generator coupled to a discovery engine where the
CME generator “has access to interface attribute metadata” and repeat their
assertion that the ’244 patent does not disclose a CME. App. Br. 18-19;
Reply Br. 6 (repeating the same arguments as in their main brief).
Appellants, however, have not addressed – much less persuasively rebutted
– the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 5, 28) by explaining why the disclosure of
the messages received by the cluster availability managers does not teach or
suggest the recited claim limitation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error in rejecting claim 3.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner finding the ’244 patent
teaches or suggests two component management entities cascaded in series
Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

9
between the system manager and at least the subset of the plurality of system
components recited in claim 6. Ans. 7 (citing the ’244 patent, col. 6, l. 37 –
col. 7, l. 50; Fig. 4B). The Examiner maps the recited system manager to the
availability manager 405; the recited component management entities
(CMEs) to the cluster membership monitors 420A-C; and the recited system
components to components 110A-E. Ans. 3, 26-27. As shown in Figure 4B,
cluster membership monitor 420B is connected to cluster membership
monitor 420C, which, in turn, is connected to availability manager 405.
This at least suggests that two CMEs (cluster membership monitors 420B
and 420C) are cascaded in series and between the system manager
(availability manager 405) and some other system components. Because
messages are able to be sent between the components (which include
component 110F and cluster membership monitor 420B) on node 104 (col.
6, ll. 57-59), this passage and Figure 4B at least suggest that the cluster
membership monitors 420B and 420C are able to communicate and
therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are between the
availability manager 405 and the component 110F.
We also are not persuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claim 7,
which Appellants appear to challenge the Examiner’s finding on the basis
that “the specified interfaces” (i.e., all the recited interfaces) are allegedly
missing from the applied reference. Ans. 19 (emphasis added). The claim
on its face, however, only requires one of the various management interfaces
recited. The ’244 patent describes the interaction between the availability
manager (which the Examiner maps to the recited system manager) and a
standby availability manager to which the availability manager periodically
sends checkpoint messages to keep the standby informed of the current state
Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

10
of the components managed by the master availability manager. Ans. 7
(citing the ’244 patent, col. 6, l. 66 – col. 7, l. 84). This discussion when
combined with ‘069 teaching of an interface at least suggests an event,
configuration, or diagnostic management interface. Appellants’ mere
assertion that the reference does not teach or suggest the specified interfaces
recited does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s position that this
portion teaches or suggests one of the recited interfaces.
Appellants assert that the cited portion of the ’244 patent does not
teach the specified characteristics recited by claim 8. We are not persuaded
of error by Appellants’ mere assertion that is inconsistent with the scope of
the claims which only requires only of the recited characteristics and a
general assertion that the Examiner’s Answer has not adequately addressed
this rejection. App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 7.
Appellants, therefore, have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claims 2, 3, and 6-8 and
claims 4, 5, and 125 not separately argued. Accordingly, we are not
convinced of Examiner error in rejecting these claims.

Claims 9-11
We will likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 9 reciting, in pertinent part, a self-configuring interface having a set of

4 The Examiner also cites column 22, lines 50-63, in rejecting claim 7.
Ans. 7. The ’244 patent, however, does not include a column 22. Because
we find that the cited portion of the ’244 patent teaches or suggests the
disputed aspect of claim 7, we deem this error harmless.
5 Although Appellants argue that claim 12, like claims 10 and 11, is
allowable for similar reasons that independent claim 9 is allowable (App. Br.
21; Reply Br. 9), claim 12 depends from indirectly from claim 1.
Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

11
member functions from a class library of high availability interface attributes
and methods to couple the manager with a component in the system.
In response to Appellants’ assertion that the rule-based event filter
taught in the ’244 patent does not teach or suggest “a self-configuring
interface having a set of member functions from a class library of high
availability interface attributes” and that the ’244 patent merely teaches
interfaces that already exist or are pre-configured (App. Br. 20-21), the
Examiner explains that the interface in the ’244 patent is self-configuring
because the interface is continuously being reconfigured. Ans. 29 (citing
col. 11, ll. 39-64; col. 5, ll. 29-65). Appellants do not respond to the
Examiner’s further explanation and instead merely repeat the same argument
in their Reply Brief as in their main brief. Appellants’ argument does not
squarely address—let alone persuasively rebut—the Examiner’s findings
regarding the ’244 patent teaching or suggesting the recited self-configuring
interface. We also refer to our previous discussion when addressing claim 1
and whether the interfaces are existing or pre-configured.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 9 and claim 10 not separately argued with particularity.
Also, claim 11 depends indirectly form claim 9 and further recites the
same limitation found in claim 8. For the reasons discussed above with
respect to claims 8 and 9, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the
rejection of claim 11.

Independent Claim 13
Claim 13 recites
control logic; and
Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

12
an interface engine including one or more functions
selectively invoked by the control logic, the one or more
functions to configure an interface between a system manager
and a component based on one or more component
characteristics affecting one of an interfaceability and a service
availability of the component.
Claim 13 is rejected as being obviousness based on the combination of the
’244 and ’069 patents (Ans. 3).
According to the Examiner, the ’244 patent teaches or suggests
configuring an interface as recited by claim 13 in selected portions of
columns 7 and 8. 6 Ans. 9 (citing col. 7, ll. 29-50; col. 8, ll. 16-35). The
cited portions indicate that the availability management system includes a
cluster membership monitor, an availability monitor, and a multi-component
error correlator (MCEC), among other components. Col. 7, ll. 31-35. The
availability management system gathers information about component health
and facilitates the exchange of checkpoints between active and stand-by
components. Col. 7, ll. 42-45. The availability management system assigns
components to active and stand-by roles according to various redundancy
models (col. 7, ll. 35-38) and in response to various environmental changes,
such as new devices coming on-line and service fail-overs (col. 8, ll. 23-24,
32-35).
Giving “configuring an interface” recited by claim 13 its broadest
reasonable interpretation, we do not perceive error in the Examiner’s
position that the recited interface engine and configuring an interface is
taught or suggested by these passages discussing the availability

6 When discussing claim 13, the Examiner refers to the ’244 patent. Yet,
when discussing claim 1 and similar limitations in both claims 1 and 13
related to configuring an interface, the Examiner has further relied upon the
’069 patent.
Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

13
management system, which facilities the exchange of information in the
form of checkpoints between components in a dynamic environment, where
for example a component’s role may change from an stand-by to an active
component during a service fail-over and or when new components come
on-line. The ’244 patent’s availability management system gathers
information from error reports that include information about new
components coming on-line and service failovers.
Nor are we convinced of error in the Examiner’s position that these
passages teach or suggest configuring an interface based on a component
characteristic affecting interfaceabilty and/or a service availability of the
component as recited by claim 13. Indeed, whether a component is on-line
is the epitome of a characteristic affecting interfacability and service
availability.
In view of the above discussion, Appellants’ mere assertion that the
cited portions do not teach the interface engine including one or more
functions (App. Br. 22) does not persuade us. Appellants also repeat their
assertions that the ’069 patent only teaches or suggests interfaces that
already exist and/or are pre-configured (App. Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 10-11),
which we dismiss here for the same reasons we did previously with regard to
claim 1.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 13.

Claims 27, 39, and 44
We likewise will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 27, 39, and 44. Appellants, in arguing Examiner error, merely point
Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

14
to the similarity with claim 13 and rely on their previous arguments made
with reference to claim 13. App. Br. 22-24; Reply Br. 11-12. Therefore, for
the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 13, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 27, 39, and 44.

Claims 14-26, 29-33, 41-43, and 45-49
We also are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 14-26, 29-33, 41-43, and 45-49, which depend directly or
indirectly from claims 13, 27, 39, and 44 respectively. Except for claim 15,
Appellants refer to their previous arguments made for the respective
independent claims. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the
reasons previously discussed.
Claim 15 recites the same characteristics recited by claim 8. For the
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8 related to reciting a similar
limitation, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of
claim 15.

Claims 34-38
We likewise are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 34 and claims 35-38, which depend from
claim 34. Appellants assert that neither the ’244 patent nor the ’069 patent
teaches or suggests configuring an interface as recited by claim 34. App.
Br. 25-26; Reply Br. 13-14. For the same reasons discussed above with
respect to claims 1 and 13, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the
rejection of claim 34 or dependent claims 35 and 36.
Appeal 2010-005006
Application 10/183,894

15
Regarding claim 37, Appellants additionally argue that the portion of
the ’244 patent (col. 5, ll. 48-65) relied on by the Examiner fails to teach the
specific characteristics recited in claim 37 (App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 14),
which are the same characteristics recited by claim 8. We additionally are
not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 37 for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 38, Appellants also argue that the ’069 patent does
not teach the specified interfaces recited in claim 38 (App. Br. 27; Reply Br.
14), which are the same interfaces recited by claim 7. Accordingly, we
additionally are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 38
for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7.

CONCLUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-27, 29-39,
and 41-49.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-27, 29-39, and 41-49 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
babc