CommScope Connectivity UK Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 18, 2021

2020000516 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2021)

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.
14/341,008 07/25/2014 Kevin David Townend 100.1279US01 7489
135878 7590 05/18/2021
Fogg & Powers LLC/Commscope
4600 W 77th St
Suite 305
Minneapolis, MN 55435
EXAMINER
DUONG, OANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2021 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):
docketing@fogglaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEVIN DAVID TOWNEND,
ANDREW P. ROBERTS, and
ALEXANDER THOMAS

Appeal 2020-000516
Application 14/341,008
Technology Center 2400

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“CommScope Connectivity UK Limited.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000516
Application 14/341,008

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates “to a ‘software only’ . . . physical layer
management (PLM) system . . . us[ing] a hardware appliance that is locally
deployed in an enterprises network.” Spec., Abstr. Claims 1 and 11,
reproduced below, are illustrative of argued subject matter.
1. A server system comprising:
one or more server computers operated by a third party;
wherein the one or more server computers are configured to
execute a respective hosted management application for each
respective network of a plurality of networks as a hosted
service, wherein each respective network of the plurality of
networks is operated by a different respective enterprise of a
plurality of enterprises;
wherein the respective hosted management application for each
respective network of the plurality of networks is configured to
include a documentation function to document connections to
one or more devices made using cables in the respective
network and a workflow management function to direct a
technician in moving, adding, or changing connections made
using cables in the respective network, wherein the one or more
devices include at least one managed device that includes a
physical layer information [(PLI)] acquisition technology; and
wherein the respective hosted management application for at
least one respective network of the plurality of networks is
configured to support a software only configuration in which all
interaction with the documentation function and the workflow
management function included in the respective hosted
management application by entities associated with the
respective network occurs only using client software executing
on one or more client devices associated with the respective
network.
Appeal 2020-000516
Application 14/341,008

3
11. A system comprising:
one or more server computers operated by a third party,
wherein the one or more server computers are configured to
aggregate [PLI] about each respective network of a plurality of
networks as a hosted service, wherein each respective network
of the plurality of networks is operated by a different respective
enterprise of a plurality of enterprises;
devices deployed in a first network included in the plurality of
networks, the devices comprising [PLI] data acquisition
technology to automatically capture [PLI] about cables used to
make connections using the devices; and
an appliance deployed in the first network that is configured to
run a local agent that receives [PLI] acquired using the [PLI]
data acquisition technology in the devices of the first network
and communicates at least some of the received [PLI] to a
hosted management application for the first network, wherein
the hosted management application is hosted on the one or
more server computers operated by the third party, wherein the
appliance is configured to appear and function, from the
perspective of the devices deployed in the first network, as a
management application that is locally deployed in the first
network.
Appeal Br. 22, 25.
Rejections
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
Final Act. 2.
Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 13–18, and 20–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Reyes (US 2011/0289134 A1; Nov. 24,
2011) and Raza (US 2010/0211664 A1; Aug. 19, 2010). Final Act. 3–10.
Claims 5, 10, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Reyes, Raza, and Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
Final Act. 10.
Appeal 2020-000516
Application 14/341,008

4
OPINION
Indefiniteness
As to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Appellant
only states: “As discussed in the Examiner Interview Summary submitted
on December 26, 2018, the after-final amendment to claim 11 was entered
by Examiner Duong[] and the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § l12(b)
included in the September 2018 [Final Office Action] has been overcome.”
Appeal Br. 20. The Examiner has not indicated the withdrawal of the 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection. See Ans. 3. Accordingly, we summarily sustain
the rejection of claim 11.
Obviousness
As to the rejections of claims 1–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Appellant
addresses only the independent claims (1 and 11) with particularity.
Appeal Br. 7 et seq. We are unpersuaded of error in the rejections of the
independent claims and accordingly sustain the rejections for claims 1–22.
1. Independent Claim 1
The overall dispute for claim 1 is whether the applied prior art teaches
or suggests the following claim limitation:
[T]he respective hosted management application for a
respective network supports a software only configuration in
which] all interaction with the documentation [] and workflow
management function[s of the application,] by entities
associated with the respective network[,] occurs only using
client software executing on . . . client devices [of] the
respective network.
Appeal Br. 8.
To address the limitation, the Examiner relies on both Reyes and
Raza. Final Act. 3–5. Specifically, the Examiner maps Reyes’ networks
Appeal 2020-000516
Application 14/341,008

5
(130–50) and their use of a cloud service (102) to the claimed plurality of
networks (one being the above “respective network”) and their interactions
with the documentation/workflow functions of the hosted management
application (herein “HMA”). Id. at 3. The Examiner finds Reyes’ networks
and cloud service are respectively similar to Raza’s client computers (136,
138)2 and aggregation point (120). Id. at 4; Ans. 11–12. In view of that
finding, Examiner determines it would have been obvious to add Raza’s
detecting and reporting of PLI, as performed by Raza’s client computer, to
each of Reyes networks; and to add Raza’s tracking of PLI and related
assistance in managing device connections, as performed by Raza’s
aggregation point, to Reyes’ cloud service. Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner
determines the Reyes-Raza combination’s resulting networks achieve the
claimed networks, its cloud service achieves the claimed HMA, and the
cloud service’s tracking of PLI and related assistance in managing device
connections respectively achieve the claimed HMA’s documentation
function and workflow management function. Id. at 4–5.
Appellant contends Raza’s applied disclosures cannot teach or suggest
the argued claim limitation’s “all interaction with the documentation [] and
workflow management function[s] . . . occurs only using client software”
because some interactions between Raza’s aggregation point and
client computers do not occur via client software. Appeal Br. 10–12.
Specifically, though acknowledging “the aggregation point . . . provides
[interfaces] for external devices or entities to access (retrieve and/or supply)

2 There is no dispute that Raza’s computer 136 can operate as one of the
inter-networking devices 138. We add, nonetheless, Raza describes them as
having similar functions and as being available at a same site. Raza ¶ 52–
54, 57.
Appeal 2020-000516
Application 14/341,008

6
the [collected PLI]” (Reply Br. 3), Appellant contends at least two
interactions between the aggregation point and client computers do not occur
via client software (id. at 3–4). First, Appellant references Raza’s use of
“managed devices [to] automatically read and communicate the [PLI] to the
aggregation point.” Reply Br. 3–4 (citing Raza ¶¶ 35–45); see also
Appeal Br. 11. Second, Appellant references Raza’s “us[e of PLI]
functionality 914 and an API of the aggregation point” to retrieve PLI from
the aggregation point. Reply Br. 3 (citing Raza ¶¶ 133–35); see also Appeal
Br. 11.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner does not find
Raza describes the aggregation point as always collecting and providing PLI
solely from and to client software. Final Act. 4–5. Rather, the Examiner
finds Raza teaches the aggregation point as sometimes collecting and
providing PLI from and to client software (134) and, in turn, determines it
would have been obvious for the Reyes-Raza combination’s cloud service to
perform all collecting and providing of PLI via client software. Id.; see, e.g.,
Final Act. 5; Ans. 11–12. That is, in view of Raza, the Examiner finds it
was known to collect and provide PLI from and to client software and
accordingly determines it would have been obvious to do so solely via client
software. Id. See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”);
id. at 418 (“[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim[.]”). Appellant cannot show
an error in the Examiner’s reasoning by merely showing Raza’s cited
embodiment sometimes collects and provides PLI by means other than client
Appeal 2020-000516
Application 14/341,008

7
software. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference[.]”). Raza is
sufficient support if, as a whole, it shows the modification of Reyes’
invention would have been obvious. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal
Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A reference must be considered
for everything it teaches by way of technology[.]”).
Appellant also contends: “[T]he Examiner fails to explicitly identify
the particular modifications that would be made to [] Reyes . . . [and] to
provide reasoning as to why the modifications . . . would be obvious.”
Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further contends: “[T]he motivation . . . is derived
from the benefits of other features of Raza not relied upon in the rejection
. . . [and] does not follow from the asserted modification.” Id.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error, for each of two reasons.
First, the contentions do not present a developed argument.
See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner,
unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed
waived.” (quoting Tolbert v. Queens Coll., 242 F.3d 58, 75 (2d Cir. 2001))).
Indeed, the contentions are not even compatible with one another because
Appellant alleges the modification is not articulated but then contrarily
alleges an understanding of the “asserted modification,” the “motivation
identified,” and how they are “derived from the benefits of . . . Raza.”
Appeal Br. 13.
Second, in view of Raza, the Examiner determines it would have been
obvious for Reyes’ networks to detect and report PLI to the cloud service,
Appeal 2020-000516
Application 14/341,008

8
for the networks to receive related assistance from Reyes’ cloud service
(recommendations in managing device connections), and for these
interactions between Reyes’ networks and the cloud service to occur via
client software of the networks. See supra 4–6 (discussion of Reyes-Raza
combination). We find the rationale is self-evident, i.e., to provide a
cloud-service management of PLI information for the served external
networks and their devices. Further, this rationale is presented by the
explicitly stated motivation “to allow any of the [PLI] that resides in the
PLM system to be used by external systems” (Final Act. 6) and the explicitly
stated benefit that “the external devices and entities do not need to
individually interact with all of the devices that provide PLI” (Ans. 13). But
see KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 (“Helpful insights . . . need not become rigid and
mandatory formulas[.] The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or
by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents.”).
2. Independent Claim 11
The overall dispute for claim 11 is whether the applied prior art
teaches or suggests the following claim limitation:
[A]n appliance deployed in the first network that is
configured to run a local agent that receives [PLI] acquired
using the [PLI] data acquisition technology in the devices of the
first network and communicates at least some of the received
[PLI] to a[n HMA] for the first network.
Appeal Br. 8–12.
To address the limitation, the Examiner relies on both Reyes and
Raza. Specifically, the Examiner maps Reyes’ networks (130–50) and their
Appeal 2020-000516
Application 14/341,008

9
use of the cloud service respectively to the claimed networks (one being the
above “first network”) and their communication with a HMA. Final Act. 7.
The Examiner analogizes Reyes’ networks and cloud service respectively to
Raza’s Ethernet switches (1900) and aggregation point. Id. at 8. The
Examiner concludes it would have obvious to add Raza’s communicating of
PLI, as performed by the Ethernet switches, to each of Reyes’ networks. Id.
at 7–9. The Examiner determines the Reyes-Raza combination’s networks
achieve the claimed networks, the cloud service achieves the claimed HMA,
and each network’s communicating of PLI achieves the claimed
combination of the appliance, local agent, and data acquisition equipment.
Id. at 8–9.
Appellant contends Raza’s applied disclosures cannot teach or suggest
the claimed communicating of PLI because:
[Raza’s] Ethernet switch 1900 . . . does not receive [PLI]
acquired using [PLI] data acquisition technology [of] devices in
the network or communicate such [PLI] to a [HMA]. Instead,
the Ethernet switch 1900 . . . communicate[s PLI for] the
switch 1900 [(e.g.,] the cables connected to it[)] to the
aggregation point. . . . In other words, the Ethernet switch
1900 obtains [PLI] using its own [PLI] data acquisition
technology and communicates the [PLI] that it obtains itself to
the aggregation point.
Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added).
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner does not find
Raza’s Ethernet switch teaches the claimed communicating of PLI, but
rather that the switch’s functioning and components show it would have
been obvious to add the claimed communicating of PLI to Reye’s networks.
Final Act. 7–9 (discussed Final Act. 8–9). Specifically, the Examiner finds
each switch relays PLI by including: a PHY device (1902) with registers
Appeal 2020-000516
Application 14/341,008

10
(1922) that acquire PLI for respective connections (e.g., jack 1904 and
inserted RJ-45 plug); and a processor (1930) running software (1932) that
receives the acquired PLI and relays the PLI to the aggregation point. Final
Act. 8–9; Advisory Act., Cont’n Sheet (PTOL-303); see also Raza ¶ 190.
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to similarly use
separate PLI-acquisition registers and PLI processors/software within each
of Reyes’ networks to respectively acquire and communicate PLI. Id. The
Examiner also determines each network’s PLI registers, processors, and
software respectively achieve the claimed data acquisition equipment
(registers), appliance (processor), and local agent (software). Id. Appellant
does not show this use of separate PLI-acquisition registers and PLI
processors/software by Reyes’ networks fails to achieve the argued claim
limitation, but rather unpersuasively contends that Raza individually fails to
achieve the limitation. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (“One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually [if] the rejection [is]
based on [a] combination[] of references.”).
Appellant also contends, exactly as contended for claim 1, the
Examiner does not articulate the modification of Reyes and the motivation is
derived from benefits of Raza’s invention that do not result from the
modification. Appeal Br. 19; see also supra 7 (identifying the same
contentions with regard to claim 1). As discussed for claim 1, these
contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellant also contends: “[N]othing in Raza teaches or suggests that
the aggregation point 120 is a[n HMA] that is hosted on one or more server
computers operated by the third party.” Reply Br. 9. We are unpersuaded of
Examiner error because Appellant does not show “good cause” for first
Appeal 2020-000516
Application 14/341,008

11
raising this argument in the Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)
(permitted contents of a Reply Brief). The argument is therefore untimely
and not considered on the merits. Id.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1–22.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11 112(b) Indefiniteness 11
1–4, 6–9, 11,
13–18, 20–22 103 Reyes, Raza
1–4, 6–9,
11, 13–18,
20–22

5, 10,
12, 19 103 Reyes, Raza
5, 10,
12, 19
Overall
Outcome 1–22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this Appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2018).
AFFIRMED