Ex Parte Mandavilli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 2013

10998819 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SWAMY J. MANDAVILLI, DIPANKAR GUPTA, SRIKANTH NATARAJAN, SUNIL MENON, ANIL A. KURIAKOSE, and CHRIS SCHLEICHER ____________ Appeal 2010-011234 Application 10/998,819 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011234 Application 10/998,819 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner finally rejected claims 1-24. Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for managing a network, comprising: selecting, based on virtual private network ("VPN") services, a set of edge routers to monitor at an interior gateway protocol layer of the network; monitoring the set of edge routers at an interior gateway protocol layer of the network and using an interior gateway protocol message to detect change in the network; and determining effects of the detected network change on Multi Protocol Label Switching paths in the network. REJECTIONS R1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13, 16, 17, and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Lehane (U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2006/0056328 A1). R2. Claims 3, 5, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over Lehane. Appeal 2010-011234 Application 10/998,819 3 ANALYSIS I. AFFIRMED REJECTED CLAIMS Regarding the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 under Â§ 102 and of claims 5, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 24 under Â§ 103, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's rejections. Regarding these claim rejections, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 18-30). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below: CLAIMS 1 AND 13 Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lehane's selecting of all edge routers included in Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) traps discloses "selecting . . . a set of edge routers to monitor" (emphasis added) within the meaning of claim 1 and the commensurate language of claim 13? Appellants contend that indiscriminate collection of Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) data, i.e., Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) data does not disclose the limitation at issue. (Reply Br. 1-2; App. Br. 14). Appellants' contentions are not persuasive because the Examiner does not rely upon the collection of OSPF data to disclose the "selecting." (Ans. 3-4, 18-19). The Examiner concludes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "selecting" reads on Lehane's selecting to monitor all edge routers included in SNMP traps and Label Switched Paths (LSPs) contained in the collected OSPF data. (Id.). Appeal 2010-011234 Application 10/998,819 4 Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lehane discloses "selecting, . . . a set of edge routers to monitor at an interior gateway protocol layer of the network;" (emphasis added) within the meaning of claim 1 and in the commensurate language of claim 13? Appellants contend that Lehane's monitoring using SNMP is monitoring at an application level, not monitoring at an interior gateway protocol layer. (Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 15). However, Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner's finding that Lehane's "SNMP traps are set to identify information from OSPF and other IPG routing packets" discloses the limitation at issue. (Ans. 19) (emphasis added). Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lehane discloses "selecting, based on virtual private network ("VPN") services, . . . " (emphasis added) within the meaning of claim 1 and the commensurate language of claim 13? Appellants contends: [M]onitoring all routers provides the information required by the process of Lahane [sic], including information required to apply the process to a VPN. Therefore, selection of routers based on VPN need not necessary be performed to apply the Lahane [sic] process to a VPN. (Reply Br. 2; See App. Br. 14-15). Appellants' contentions are not persuasive. Appellants fail to present substantive arguments and evidence to support Appellants' conclusory statements. The Examiner finds Lehane's selection "would be inherently based on the VPNs since the selections are being done on a VPN." (Ans. 20). We agree, since Lehane's process applied to VPNs includes selecting Appeal 2010-011234 Application 10/998,819 5 and monitoring routers providing ("based on") VPN services. (Ans. 20; Lehane Â¶ [0085]). CLAIM 9 Appellants contend that Lehane does not disclose claim 9's limitation of "monitoring selected label edge routers in the network" because Lehane does not monitor fewer than all routers. (App. Br. 17). Appellants' contentions are not persuasive because claim 9 does not recite "fewer than all routers." CLAIM 10 Appellants contend that Lehane does not disclose "the monitoring device generating an alert when a change in the network is detected" as recited in claim 10. (App. Br. 17). Specifically, Appellants contend that Lehane's router generates an immediate warning, not Lehane's external application ("monitoring device"). (Id.). The Examiner responds and we agree, that Lehane's external application ("monitoring device") provides an "immediate warning of the LSP change" ("alert") after the router informs "the external application of any change to the LSP." (Lehane Â¶ [0084]; Ans. 27). Moreover, Appellants fail to rebut this finding in the Reply Brief. CLAIMS 5 AND 14 Appellants contend that Lehane would not have taught or suggested "the edge routers monitored are determined by user selection." (App. Br. 19-20). Appellants contend: The Examiner concludes from these portions of Lehane that it would be obvious for the operator to select the part of the network to be output, and leaps therefrom to a conclusory Appeal 2010-011234 Application 10/998,819 6 statement that it would be obvious for a user to select edge routers to monitor. (App. Br. 19-20; footnotes omitted). Appellants appear to contend that only "edge routers may be selected by the operator to monitor." (Id). However, Appellants' contentions are not commensurate with the broader scope of claim 5. We find that Lehane's set of edge routers in the network part selected by the operator to monitor discloses "the edge routers monitored are determined by user selection," as recited in claim 5 and commensurate language of claim 14. (Ans. 29 citing Lehane Â¶ [0021]). CLAIMS 12, 15, 18, AND 24 Appellants contend that "the least cost path of Lehane is unrelated to and fails to suggest the best effort path of claim 12." (App. Br. 20). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that "best efforts" is a quality of service (QoS). (Ans. 29-30). Moreover, we find Lehane would have taught or suggested a best effort path because Lehane teaches QoS mechanisms are an alternative to least-cost path routing. (Id.; Lehane Â¶ [0085]). Appellants do not present persuasive argument or evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings. CLAIMS 4, 6-8, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, AND 23 Although Appellants present nominal arguments for claims 4, 6-8, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer and for the reasons discussed above regarding commensurate limitations and issues. Appeal 2010-011234 Application 10/998,819 7 II. REVERSED REJECTED CLAIMS CLAIMS 2, 21, AND 22 Appellants contend that Lehane's paragraph [0083] merely teaches discovering alternative paths between routers, not "selecting fewer than all the edge routers of the network for monitoring." (App. Br. 16-17) (emphasis added). We agree with Appellants' contentions. Contrary to the Examiner's findings (Ans. 25-26), Lehane's paragraph [0083] describes discovering LSP paths between routers, and Lehane's paragraph [0084] describes notifying an application of changes to an LSP. However, Lehane does not disclose monitoring only the routers on the paths ("fewer than all the edge routers"). For these reasons, we reverse the rejection of claim 2, and claim 21, which recites the aforementioned disputed limitations in commensurate form. Because we have reversed the rejection of claim 21, we also reverse the rejection of claim 22, which depends therefrom. CLAIM 3 Appellants contend Lehane does not teach or suggest the limitation of "selecting only path end point edge routers for monitoring" as recited in claim 3 (emphasis added). Specifically, Appellants contend "[t]he Examiner's suggested configuration fails to monitor only path end point edge routers, but rather monitors the entire network via an end point edge router." (App. Br. 19). We agree with Appellants' contentions. We disagree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to try to monitor only path end point edge routers out of all combinations of routers. (Ans. 28). A combination is only obvious to try if a person of ordinary skill has â€œa good reason to pursue the known options.â€ KSR Intâ€™l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Here, the Examiner has not shown that a person of Appeal 2010-011234 Application 10/998,819 8 ordinary skill would have had a good reason to pursue all the known options.1 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 under Â§ 102. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 24 under Â§ 103. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 21, and 22 under Â§ 102. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 3 under Â§ 103. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART llw 1 The Supreme Court guides: When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.