ZHANG, Xiaotian et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 2, 2020

13409897 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2020)

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.
13/409,897 03/01/2012 Xiaotian ZHANG 4657-95900 3497
97698 7590 11/02/2020
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
EXAMINER
OSMAN, RAMY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2020 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):
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOTIAN ZHANG, JUNXIA XU, and HUANGWEI WU

Appeal 2019-005425
Application 13/409,897
Technology Center 2400

Before LARRY J. HUME, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 18–38.1 On October 8, 2020, an oral
hearing was held in this appeal. A transcript of the hearing has been added
to the record. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005425
Application 13/409,897
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to:
A method, a system for accessing a home network device,
and a home network access device are disclosed. The method
includes the steps as follows. A home network access device
finds a home network device and obtains information of the
home network device through a home network protocol. A data
model of the home network device is established in the home
network access device according to the information of the home
network device. A remote service device accesses the data
model of the home network device established in the home
network access device through a remote management protocol.
Spec., Abstr.
Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates one embodiment of the
invention:

Figure 2 is “a structural view of a system for accessing a home
network device according to an embodiment of the present invention.”
Spec. ¶ 25. The home network access device 202, finds a home network
device 201 and obtains information about the home network device through
a home network protocol. Spec. ¶¶ 23, 27. The information is used to
establish a data model of the home network device. Spec. ¶ 23. A remote
service device then accesses the data model from the home network access
device through a remote management protocol. Spec. ¶¶ 23, 28.
Appeal 2019-005425
Application 13/409,897
3
Claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
18. A method comprising:
obtaining, by a home network access device (HNAD)
using a home network protocol, a description of a home network
device (HND);
establishing, by the HNAD, a data model of the HND
based on the obtained description;
receiving, by the HNAD using a remote management
protocol, a remote management protocol message from a remote
service device wherein the message specifies one or more
parameter values of the data model;
setting, by the HNAD, the one or more specified parameter
values of the data model according to the received message;
generating, by the HNAD, a second protocol packet for a
second protocol based on the one or more specified parameter
values wherein the second protocol is a home network protocol
that is different from the remote management protocol; and
sending, by the HNAD, using the second protocol, the
second protocol packet to the HND.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence:
Name Reference Date
Zayas US 2004/0193758 A1 Sep. 30, 2004
Murakami US 2010/0004763 A1 Jan. 7, 2010
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 18–20, 22, 23, 28, 30, 32, and 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Murakami. Final Act. 3–4.
2. Claims 21, 24–27, 29, 31, and 34–38 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Murakami and Zayas. Final Act. 5–6.
Appeal 2019-005425
Application 13/409,897
4
OPINION
Appellant argues claims 18–20, 22, 23, and 28 together as a group.
See Appeal Br. 4–6. We select claim 18 as representative of these claims.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 18 recites:
receiving, by the HNAD using a remote management
protocol, a remote management protocol message from a
remote service device wherein the message specifies one or
more parameter values of the data model
(“the receiving step”). Claim 18 also recites:
generating, by the HNAD, a second protocol packet for a
second protocol based on the one or more specified parameter
values wherein the second protocol is a home network protocol
that is different from the remote management protocol.
(“the generating step”).
The Examiner finds Murakami discloses the above limitations. Final
Act. 4 (citing Murakami ¶¶ 70, 80, 91, 115, 116). Murakami relates to a
gateway device “that connects networks having different protocols.”
Murakami ¶ 1. Figure 1 of Murakami, reproduced below, shows networks
having different kinds of protocols being interconnected by a gateway
device.

Appeal 2019-005425
Application 13/409,897
5
In Figure 1, control device 14 is connected to the gateway device using
Protocol A. Murakami ¶ 68. Terminal appliances 15, 16, and 17 are
connected to gateway device using Protocol B. Murakami ¶ 68.
Appellant contends Murakami does not teach the receiving step
because paragraph 70 of Murakami “does not disclose a ‘remote protocol
management message’ that specifies ‘one or more parameter values.’ No
message was received so there are no parameter values from the message to
be set.” Appeal Br. 5.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Paragraph 70 of
Murakami discloses:
the control device 14 transmits, to the gateway device 11,
communication data for controlling the appliance connected to
the protocol B 13. Then, the gateway device 11 converts the
received communication data into communication data
corresponding to the protocol B 13, and transmits the
communication data to the terminal appliance 15 connected to
the corresponding protocol B 13.
Murakami ¶ 70. This paragraph demonstrates that the gateway device
receives communication data from the control device for controlling the
appliances using protocol A. This communication data includes parameters
such as an address of the corresponding appliance, a name of the appliance,
attributes, and other data. See Final Act. 4 (citing Murakami ¶¶ 80, 115,
116); Ans. 7 (citing Murakami ¶¶ 80, 115, 116); see also Murakami Figs. 5,
6. The gateway device then converts the received communication data into
data corresponding to protocol B and transmits the data to the terminal
appliances. Murakami ¶ 70. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the
gateway device receives a message (i.e., the communication data) containing
parameters (name, attributes, etc.).
Appeal 2019-005425
Application 13/409,897
6
Appellant next contends Murakami does not disclose the generating
step. Appellant argues Murakami “fails to disclose a second protocol packet
is generated and sent by the HNAD” and “fails to disclose a second protocol
based on the one or more specified parameter values.” Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant argues that Murakami discloses a protocol conversion process
between protocol A and protocol B, while in the invention of claim 18 a
second protocol packet is generated and sent instead of performing protocol
conversion. Appeal Br. 5.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Paragraph 70,
discussed above, clearly shows that once the gateway device receives
communication data containing parameters from the control device using
protocol A, it converts the data and transmits the data to the terminal
appliances using protocol B. Murakami ¶ 70. Appellant argues that
conversion is different from generating a message. Appeal Br. 5. We fail to
see a patentable distinction. We find that when the gateway device receives
a message using protocol A and converts the message to be transmitted
using protocol B, that conversion generates a message associated with
protocol B.
In the Reply Brief, for the first time, Appellant argues “Murakami
fails to disclose or suggest the use of a remote management protocol.”
Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellant argues that, according to paragraph 68
of Murakami, both protocols A and B in Murakami are home network
protocols, “[b]ut none of the two protocols is remote management protocol.”
Reply Br. 3.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Initially, we note that
this argument was not raised in the Appeal Brief. Appellant has, therefore,
Appeal 2019-005425
Application 13/409,897
7
waived the argument by not presenting it in the Appeal Brief. See 37 CFR
§ 41.41(b)(2) (2011) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not
raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the
examiner’s answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will
not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless
good cause is shown.”).
Regardless, even if we were to consider Appellant’s argument, we
find it to be unpersuasive. Paragraph 68 of Murakami states:
FIG. 1 shows two kinds of protocols, and for example, a protocol
A 12 is referred to as the UPnP, and a protocol B 13 is referred
to as ECHONET. As a configuration of the home network, a
control device 14 is connected to the protocol A 12, and a
terminal appliance 15, a terminal appliance 16, and a terminal
appliance 17 are connected to the protocol B 13.
Murakami ¶ 68. Appellant’s Specification describes UPnP (universal plug
and play) as a common home network protocol. Spec. ¶ 4. Similarly,
Murakami describes ECHONET as a “communication protocol in a home.”
Murakami ¶ 4. We, therefore, are persuaded that both UPnP and
ECHONET are home network protocols. But Murakami makes clear that
these two protocols are an “example” in Figure 1’s embodiment of two
different protocols that Murakami’s gateway device can use. Murakami
¶ 68. Murakami, however, is more broadly directed to a gateway device that
“connects networks having different protocols” without limiting the two
protocols to home network protocols. Murakami ¶ 1. Thus, we find
Murakami’s disclosure to be broader than Appellant contends, and to
encompass the claim’s limitations.
Moreover, Appellant has not sufficiently explained the distinction
between a remote management protocol and a home network protocol. Nor
Appeal 2019-005425
Application 13/409,897
8
do we find one in Appellant’s Specification. Indeed, the Specification does
not define either term. Thus, the terms “remote” and “home,” as recited in
the claims, operate simply as descriptive labels for two different protocols
that the HNAD communicates with, without claiming any functional
distinction between the two. We find these two descriptive terms to be an
insufficient basis for arguing a patentable distinction between Murakami and
the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 18,
and of claims 19, 20, 22, 23, and 28, which were argued together with
claim 18. See Appeal Br. 4–6. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 21, 24–27, 29, 31, and 34–38, for which Appellant relies
on the same arguments as above. See Appeal Br. 6.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
18–20, 22,
23, 28, 30,
32, 33
102(e) Murakami 18–20, 22,
23, 28, 30,
32, 33

21, 24–27,
29, 31, 34–
38
103(a) Murakami, Zayas 21, 24–27,
29, 31, 34–
38

Overall
Outcome
18–38
AFFIRMED