Ex Parte Georgis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 21, 2015

11974715 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2015)

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. 11/974,715 10/16/2007 Nikolaos Georgis 50W8756.01/1917 6432 24272 7590 04/21/2015 Gregory J. Koerner Redwood Patent Law 6 Manhattan Court Redwood City, CA 94065 EXAMINER CHAD, ANISS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2123 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/21/2015 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 NIKOLAOS GEORGIS, PAUL HWANG, and DJUNG NGUYEN ____________ Appeal 2012-001282 Application 11/974,715 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-001282 Application 11/974,715 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to performing a network simulation procedure for an electronic network which includes a group of client devices configured to locally store content items in a distributed manner. Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system for performing a network simulation procedure for an electronic network, comprising: a simulation model that is configured to represent said electronic network; and a simulation manager that compiles simulation parameters corresponding to said electronic network, said simulation manager utilizing said simulation model and said simulation parameters to perform said network simulation procedure, said simulation manager periodically incrementing a simulation clock by a predefined time increment, said simulation manager then recalculating said simulation parameters. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–4, 7–17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Su (US 2005/0213514 A1; Sept. 29, 2005) in view of Steltner (US 6,650,731 B1; Nov. 18, 2003). 2 Appeal 2012-001282 Application 11/974,715 2. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Su in view of Steltner and further in view of Bahl et al. (US 2005/0204028 A1; Sept. 15, 2005). ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Su and Steltner teaches the limitation of: “periodically incrementing a simulation clock by a predefined time increment, said simulation manager then recalculating said simulation parameters,” as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Claims 1–4, 7–17, and 20 Appellants argue that Steltner does not cure Su’s deficiency by teaching utilizing any sort of a simulation clock or recalculating simulation parameters after updating the simulation clock (Br.13). Appellants assert that Steltner teaches performing “event-oriented” simulations of an electronic network (Br.13). In particular, Appellants argue Steltner teaches that “the simulation clock is put forward to the next event time, and this event is read out from the calendar and processed” (col. 17, ll. 33–35), and thus, the clock is not updated periodically, nor does it trigger a recalculation procedure (Br.14). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Steltner teaches that the simulation starts in a loop, the next event 3 Appeal 2012-001282 Application 11/974,715 is first output from the calendar, and the simulation clock is incremented to the time of the next event (Ans. 17; Fig. 19; col. 17, ll. 2–6). Steltner teaches that at the time the simulation is started, the next event is the first event generated after the simulation (Ans. 17; col. 17, ll. 4–6). Thus, Steltner teaches periodically incrementing a simulation clock by a predefined time increment (i.e., the time from the beginning of the loop until the next event). In addition, Steltner teaches that the simulation parameters can be stored and modified prior to running a new simulation to evaluate performance (Ans. 17–18; col. 6, ll. 13–26). Steltner also teaches that at the end of the simulation there is an evaluation of the performance of the intelligent network or of individual components (Ans. 17–18; col. 17, ll. 56– 67). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that this passage strongly suggests simulation parameters are re-calculated based on prior performance for the new simulation. We further agree with the Examiner that Su teaches a model of the network generated using the traffic parameters and the model can be used to simulate the network using a modified set of parameters (Ans. 18; Abstract). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the Steltner and Su combination teaches the disputed limitation of “periodically incrementing a simulation clock by a predefined time increment, said simulation manager then recalculating said simulation parameters,” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1. Appellants repeat the same arguments as those raised for claim 1 for claim 20 (Br. 14–17). Thus, we also affirm claim 20 for the same reasons as stated supra. We also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 7, 13, 14, and 4 Appeal 2012-001282 Application 11/974,715 16 for the same reasons because these claims were not separately argued (Br. 17). Appellants separately argue claims 2, 4, 8–12, 15, and 17, (App. Br. 17–22) by merely reciting disputed limitations as not taught by the prior art, but without explaining why the Examiner’s findings are incorrect. Appellants present no substantive arguments regarding the claims other than merely restating the limitations called for in the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Furthermore, in reviewing the Examiner’s findings, we agree with the Examiner findings and conclusions, because the Examiner correctly interpreted the disputed claim terms consistent with Appellants’ own Specification (see Ans. 19–28). Appellants’ Specification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4, 8–12, 15, and 17. 5 Appeal 2012-001282 Application 11/974,715 Claims 5, 6, 18, and 19 Appellants rely on the same arguments for claims 5, 6, and 18 as those for claim 1 (Br. 23). For the same reasons we affirm claims 5, 6, and 18. Appellants separately argue claim 19, but again do not provide substantive arguments, but rather merely recite disputed claim elements (Br. 23–24). We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer (Ans. 28). Accordingly, we also affirm claim 19. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Su and Steltner teaches the limitation of: “periodically incrementing a simulation clock by a predefined time increment, said simulation manager then recalculating said simulation parameters,” as recited in claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 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 ACP 6