ZHANG, Xiaotian et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 2, 202013409897 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation