Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

12887830 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/887,830 09/22/2010
83719 7590 02/23/2016
AT & T Legal Department - FKM
AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT,
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING ROOM 2A-207
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JiaWANG
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2010-0121 (40147/17601) 3240
EXAMINER
GILLIS, BRIAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2016 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 JIA WANG, ZIHUI GE, AJAY MAHIMKAR, AMAN SHAIKH,
JENNIFER YATES, YIN ZHANG, and JOANNE EMMONS
Appeal2014-002351
Application 12/887,830
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, and 16-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). 1
We REVERSE.
1 Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims.
Appeal2014-002351
Application 12/887,830
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a method and
system for detecting network upgrades from a data set including a plurality
of configuration sessions (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a plurality of configuration sessions, each of the
configuration sessions comprising a plurality of configuration
commands generated by a same user identifier and within a time
threshold; and
identifying one of the configuration sessions as a network
upgrade session, the identifying based on one of A) a rareness of
the configuration session, and B) a skewness of the configuration
sess10n.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Stewart
McCormick
US 6,389,112 Bl May 14, 2002
US 2005/0276385 Al Dec. 15, 2005
REJECTION
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Stewart and McCormick (Final Act. 2-
7).
ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, and 16--20
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Stewart and
McCormick (App. Br. 3-5). The issue presented by the arguments is:
2
Appeal2014-002351
Application 12/887,830
Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Stewart
and McCormick teaches or suggests "identifying one of the configuration
sessions as a network upgrade session, the identifying based on one of A) a
rareness of the configuration session[,] and B) a skewness of the
configuration session," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Stewart does not teach identifying software
upgrades but instead, discloses monitoring software patches to analyze
trends and to allow suspect patches or upgrade sessions to be identified
(App. Br. 4). More specifically, Appellants assert Stewart teaches software
upgrades and other types of logs are captured and those classified as
"critical" are identified for monitoring and potential subsequent actions;
however, Stewart does not teach or suggest the logs are evaluated to
determine which actions are upgrades (Reply Br. 4). Thus, according to
Appellants, Stewart does not teach or suggest "identifying one of the
configuration sessions as a network upgrade session," as recited in claim 1
(App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 4).
We agree Stewart teaches captured data is analyzed to identify and
report critical data (Stewart, 13:21-38). Stewart teaches information is
captured and analyzed to trend the collected information (id. at Abstract,
13:21-38). Thus, we agree with the Examiner Stewart teaches or at least
suggests critical data includes patches and upgrades (Ans. 2; see also
Stewart 8: 17-23, 8:65-9:4).
Appellants further contend Stewart does not disclose identification of
a network upgrade session based on rareness or skewness (App Br. 4; Reply
3
Appeal2014-002351
Application 12/887,830
Br. 4 ). According to Appellants, Stewart discloses various logs may be
trended; however, Appellants assert trending is not equivalent to rareness or
skewness (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 4--5). Moreover, Appellants contend, even
if trending were analogous to rareness, Stewart does not teach or suggest the
trending is used to identify different types of sessions, whether as an upgrade
session or otherwise (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 5).
We agree with Appellants. Although, Stewart teaches the central data
processing unit receives collected information from the switches; executes
various processing algorithms using the collected information; and uses the
collected information such as log counts to determine log counts on a
network basis, graphing log counts over time, and trending the collected
information detecting the occurrence of events for which notifications
should be generated (Stewart, 7:24--34), we are persuaded by Appellants'
argument that Stewart does not teach or suggest identification of critical or
upgrade session information is made by trending of data. Although Stewart
teaches by monitoring critical logs, hardware and software upgrades may be
trended and monitored (Stewart, 13:32-38), we are not persuaded the
Examiner has shown an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found Stewart
to teach or suggest the trending is used in identifying the configuration
session as a network upgrade session.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner has
not shown the combination of Stewart and McCormick teaches or suggests
the limitations as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 19. Dependent
claims 1, 4, 7-9, 13, 16-18, and 20, stand with their respective independent
claims. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, and 16-
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Stewart and McCormick.
4
Appeal2014-002351
Application 12/887,830
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 7-10, 13, and 16-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stewart and McCormick is
reversed.
REVERSED
5