Ex Parte YuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 24, 201310899841 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/899,841 07/27/2004 Jian Yu J. Yu 1 (LCNT/126015) 7907 46363 7590 06/25/2013 WALL & TONG, LLP/ ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. 25 James Way Eatontown, NJ 07724 EXAMINER JAROENCHONWANIT, BUNJOB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/25/2013 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 JIAN YU ____________________ Appeal 2011-001593 Application 10/899,841 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. STATEMENT OF CASE Claims 1-25 are pending in the application. Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of all claims. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The invention relates to a method and apparatus for receiving, storing, and using server status information provided by a plurality of management Appeal 2011-001593 Application 10/899,841 2 system servers in, for example, a telecommunications network. See generally Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method, comprising: receiving system status information from a plurality of management systems, wherein each of said management systems is operable for performing operations support system functions for a communication network, wherein said system status information comprises, for each of said management systems, information indicative of a system status of said respective management system; storing said system status information in a database; and using said stored system status information to respond to user requests. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Battou (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0174207 A1; published Nov. 21, 2002) and Radi (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0201299 A1; published Sept. 15, 2005, filed Mar. 12, 2004). Ans. 4-8. THE CONTENTIONS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Battou teaches all recited steps of the method (citing Battou ¶¶ 0008-0011, 0309-0310, 0335-0337) but fails to teach “the method and apparatus wherein said system status information comprises a status of each of said management systems.” Ans. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner notes that Battou teaches maintaining state information pertaining to the communication network but suggests that such state information “is limited to the sub-group.” Id. The Examiner finds that Appeal 2011-001593 Application 10/899,841 3 Radi teaches that network management systems (NMSs) monitor, store, and maintain the recited system status information regarding other management systems such as element management systems (EMSs). Ans. 4-5 (citing Radi ¶¶ 0005-0007, 0029-0030). The Examiner reasons that the combination of Battou and Radi would be obvious to the skilled artisan “for the predictable result of enabling management of a larger network as well as enabling a scalable distributed system.” Ans. 5 (citing Radi ¶¶ 0002-0004). Appellant generally argues that Battou and Radi (alone or in combination) fail to teach all recited elements. App. Br. 11-23. More specifically, Appellant argues with respect to Battou alone, Radi alone, and the combination of Battou and Radi that each: … fails to teach or suggest at least the limitations of “storing said system status information in a database; and using said stored system status information to respond to user requests,” where “said system status information comprises, for each of said management systems, information indicative of a system status of said respective management system” and where “each of said management systems is operable for performing operations support system functions for a communication network, as claimed in Appellant’s claim 1” See e.g., App. Br. 20, 22, 23; Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that the management systems of Battou are not “operable for performing operations support system functions for a communication network” as recited but rather are “directed toward management of communication networks and, thus, primarily discloses network status information of communication networks managed by NMSs.” Reply Br. 11-12. Appellant further argues that in Radi “the information discussed in conjunction with the EMSs is information associated with management of network elements by the EMSs.” App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 12. Appeal 2011-001593 Application 10/899,841 4 In summary, Appellant’s arguments assert that the system status information gathered by Battou’s NMSs and Radi’s NMSs and EMSs is not the same as the recited “information indicative of a system status” of a management system that is “operable for performing operations support system functions.” Appellant also argues Battou and Radi (alone or in combination) fail to teach storing and using system status information. See, e.g., App. Br. 12- 21; Reply Br. 3-15. ISSUES Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issues: 1. Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Battou and Radi teaches reception of “system status information” from management systems that are “operable for performing operations support system functions for a communication network” as recited in claim 1? 2. Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Battou and Radi teaches “storing the system status information in a database; and using the stored system status information to respond to user requests” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Issue #1 Appellant’s arguments turn on Appellant’s interpretation of the terms “operations support system functions” and “system status information.” Appellant’s Specification provides no limiting definitions of these terms. Appeal 2011-001593 Application 10/899,841 5 “[O]perations support system functions” is referenced in the Specification only by non-exclusive examples. See, e.g., Specification p. 1. “[I]nformation indicative of a system status” is similarly referenced in the Specification by non-exclusive examples. See, e.g., Specification pp. 5-6. To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Appellant’s non-exclusive examples do not explicitly set forth a definition of these terms. Lacking any explicit definition of these terms in the Specification, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by ordinary artisans. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, we construe “operations support system functions” to mean any function performed by a management system to manage operation or support system functions of a communication network of which the management system is a component. We construe “system status information” to mean any information that indicates a status of an associated management system. Consistent with our construction of these claim terms and consistent with the Examiner’s rejection, the NMSs of Battou and Radi and the EMSs of Radi are management systems “operable for performing operations support system functions” in that the NMSs and EMSs perform functions to manage the communication network of which they are a component. See, e.g., Ans. 12. Specifically, Battou ¶ 0001 teaches “network management systems that supervise and/or control communication networks.” In like manner, Radi ¶ 0005 teaches “The NMS maintains a network map (also Appeal 2011-001593 Application 10/899,841 6 known as network view or network topology view) with hierarchical information about network topology, i.e. the equipment and connectivity data” and ¶ 0006 teaches “[a]n EMS is similar in role to the NMS.” Thus, we find that the NMSs and EMSs of Battou and Radi are “management systems” as recited in claim 1 because they perform “operations support system functions” as we have construed the term. Further consistent with our claim construction and consistent with the Examiner’s rejection, the status information exchanged among Radi’s NMSs and EMSs is “information indicative of a system status” as recited in claim 1 in that they exchange information regarding topology changes (i.e., “system status”) to permit the NMSs to maintain a topology map. See, e.g., Radi ¶¶ 0029, 0030. Therefore, the NMSs and EMSs both receive system status information from other managements systems (e.g., NMSs and EMSs) and both are operable to perform operations support system functions. In view of our findings, we are not persuaded of error in Examiner’s finding that the combination of Battou and Radi teaches “receiving system status information” from management systems, each of which is “operable for performing operations support system functions for a communication network” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 11. Issue #2 As set forth in Issue 1, we find that the combination of Battou and Radi teach the recited “receiving system status information;” therefore, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the combination fails to teach storing the system status information in a database. The Examiner finds Battou teaches storing such status information (e.g., information in exchanged MIBs of the SNMP protocol) in a database. Ans. 9-10. Battou ¶¶ Appeal 2011-001593 Application 10/899,841 7 0301 -0302 describe the structure of an NMS as including a database interface to interface the NMS with a database server for storing information for the various management components of the NMS. Battou ¶ ¶ 0269 -0270 further teaches that the NMSs may each include a separate database or may share access to a common database. We find that Battou teaches receiving and storing status information. Specifically, Battou ¶ 0011 discloses “each NMS manager receives and stores state information pertaining to the network nodes supervised by sibling NMS managers, thereby synchronizing network state information amongst siblings.” Battou ¶ 0335 teaches “Database Manager 3652 may manage a database of non-volatile information at the Node Manager.” Battou ¶ 0270 recites “database contains information for the associated network, such as connection, configuration, fault, and performance information.” Thus, we find that Battou teaches storing system status information in a database. We further find that Battou teaches using stored status information to respond to user requests. Specifically, Battou ¶¶ 0302, 0303 discloses a common network management interface that provides an interface such as a GUI (Graphical User Interface)—interacting with various management components and the database interface through Battou’s “common network management interface 3420.” Id. Thus, we find that Battou teaches or at least suggests users use the GUI for interactions, e.g. requests. It follows Battou teaches or suggests use of stored system status information to respond to user requests received through its GUI. In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Battou and Radi teaches Appeal 2011-001593 Application 10/899,841 8 storing the system status information in a database; and using the stored system status information to respond to user requests as recited in claim 1. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-10 not separately argued with particularity. App. Br. 26. Independent claim 11 was rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 (Ans. 4-5) and Appellant presents the same arguments as for claim 1 (App. Br. 26-27). For the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejection of claim 11 and dependent claims 12-25 not separately argued with particularity. App. Br. 27. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1- 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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) (2009). AFFIRMED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation