Ex Parte Lipstone

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 2018

14475366 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/475,366 09/02/2014 83579 7590 08/23/2018 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC Attn: Patent Docketing 1025 Eldorado Blvd. Broomfield, CO 80021 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Laurence R. Lipstone 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. 0373-US-Cl 9439 EXAMINER WALDRON, SCOTT A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2155 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2018 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): patent.docketing@level3.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LAURENCE R. LIPSTONE Appeal2018-001976 Application 14/475,366 1 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 2-15. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed "to content and network analytics management in a content delivery network." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 2 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 2. An analytics system comprising: at least one edge server disposed in an edge site of a content delivery network (CDN); 1 According to Appellant, Level 3 Communications, LLC is the real party in interest. Br. 2. 2 Claim 1 has been cancelled. Br. 1 7. Appeal2018-001976 Application 14/475,366 at least one collector module stored in memory and executable by a processor to collect analytics associated with requests for content in the CDN, the at least one collector module disposed in the edge site including the at least one edge server, wherein the at least one edge server extracts data from the requests for content in the CDN to determine Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) associated with one or more networks from which the requests originate; wherein the at least one collector module is executable by the processor to: apply a collection policy to the requests for content in the CDN; provide metrics for monitoring and alerting the analytics system; and provide scalability for adding and subtracting collector modules in response to fluctuations in the amount of collected analytics; a first portal that enables management of reports associated with the collected analytics; and a second portal that enables management of reporting configurations as implemented by the at least one collector module, wherein the first portal is configured to receive and reply to queries from the second portal. REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 2-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nygren et al. (The Akamai Network: A Platform for High-Performance Internet Applications; published 2010) ("Nygren") and Repantis et al. (Scaling a Monitoring Infrastructure for the Akamai Network; vol. 44, pp. 20-26, published 2010) ("Repantis"). Final Act. 5-14. 2 Appeal2018-001976 Application 14/475,366 ANALYSIS Independent claim 2 recites "at least one collector module disposed in the edge site ... provid[ing] metrics for monitoring and alerting the analytics system." Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations. The Examiner finds Nygren teaches each edge server is part of an edge server platform. Ans. 2-3 ( citing Nygren, 5). Moreover, the Examiner finds Nygren teaches deploying servers as close to the end user as possible to minimize congestion, latency, and network outages when delivering content, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "wherein the at least one collector module [disposed in the edge site]" recited in claim 2 (and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15). Ans. 6-7 ( citing Nygren, 7). The Examiner finds Nygren teaches a monitoring agent monitors and sends reports to an analytics system, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "at least one collector module disposed in the edge site ... provid[ing] metrics for monitoring and alerting the analytics system" recited in claim 2 (and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15). Ans. 7-8 ( citing Nygren, 15). Appellant argues Nygren teaches monitoring agents that monitor network performance, but is silent regarding whether monitoring agents are each disposed in the edge site, including at least one edge server. Br. 11 ( citing Nygren, 15). In addition, Appellant also argues monitoring agents are located at origin locations measuring metrics from a user standpoint. Br. 11 (citing Nygren, 8, 15). We agree with Appellant. We disagree with the Examiner's two-tiered approach in rejecting claims 2, 8, and 15. In particular, claims 2 and 15 (and similarly recited claim 8) refer to "collector module" in antecedence. Furthermore, the Examiner initially relies on pages 5 and 7 of Nygren to teach a "collector 3 Appeal2018-001976 Application 14/475,366 module disposed in the edge site" and then relies on page 15 of Nygren to teach the limitation "at least one collector module disposed in the edge site ... provid[ing] metrics for monitoring and alerting the analytics system." Compare Ans. 2-3, 6-7 (citing Nygren, 5, 7) with Ans. 7-8 (citing Nygren, 15). However, pages 5 and 7 of Nygren appear to be a disparate embodiment compared to page 15 of Nygren. Specifically, page 15 of Nygren explicitly states a "monitoring agent" provides reports to an analytics system, while pages 5 and 7 of Nygren make no mention of a "monitoring agent." Compare Nygren, 15 with id. at 5, 7. And pages 5 and 7 of Nygren are silent as to a "monitoring agent" providing reports to an analytics system. See id. Significantly, the Examiner did not provide a sufficient rationale as to how and why a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would modify the embodiment ofNygren's edge server located at the edge site (see id.) to include the disparate embodiment ofNygren's monitoring agent (see id. at 15). As a result, the cited portions of Nygren fail to teach "at least one collector module disposed in the edge site ... provid[ing] metrics for monitoring and alerting the analytics system" recited in claim 2 (and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of: (1) independent claims 2, 8, and 15; and (2) dependent claims 3-7, 9-14. 4 Appeal2018-001976 Application 14/475,366 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSED 5