Ex Parte Gupta

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2012

11487248 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANKUR GUPTA
____________________

Appeal 2010-005743
Application 11/487,248
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005743
Application 11/487,248

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claimed invention is directed to a method and system for
identifying potential adverse network conditions. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of identifying potential adverse conditions in a
network, comprising:
monitoring for events in said network;
saving data indicative of said events;
responding to an adverse network condition by
electronically searching said events preceding said adverse
network condition for patterns; and
storing data indicative of said patterns associated with
data indicative of the respective adverse network condition.

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Manganaris US 2002/0082886 A1 Jun. 27, 2002

Appeal 2010-005743
Application 11/487,248

3
REJECTION1
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Manganaris. Ans. 5.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
1. In connection with claim 1, Appellant contends that the alarm of
Manganaris only indicates the occurrence of a non-specific uncommon event
such that the reference fails to disclose examining or searching a pattern of a
particular adverse network condition such that the pattern for the adverse
network condition is stored (App. Br. 7).
2. In connection with claim 2, Appellant contends that Manganaris
fails to disclose monitoring for matches between patterns and sequences that
precede an adverse network condition and issuing a warning identifying the
particular adverse network condition associated with a matched pattern
(App. Br. 8-9).

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-16)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-3), the issue presented on appeal is:

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3-13. “A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(last
sentence). Further, merely restating with respect to a second claim an
argument, previously presented with respect to a first claim, is not an
argument for separate patentability of the two claims.

Appeal 2010-005743
Application 11/487,248

4
Did the Examiner err in concluding that Manganaris anticipates the
subject matter of claims 1 and 2?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions as to the rejection. 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 Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following arguments for emphasis.
Claim 1
We note that, when construing claim terminology during prosecution
before the Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004). In the instant case the only description of “adverse [network]
condition” in Appellant’s Specification is by way of non-limiting examples:
“[t]here will be described a method of identifying potential adverse
conditions (such as alarms, faults or performance degradation) in a
network.” Spec. 2, ll. 19-20 (emphasis added). Thus, in the absence of any
explicit definition in Appellant’s Specification, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the phrase “adverse network conditions” includes network
alarms.
Appeal 2010-005743
Application 11/487,248

5
Appellant argues that claim 1 is distinguishable over the prior art in
that “Manganaris searches a database of historical data for patterns
corresponding to non-adverse network conditions. The method of claim 1
establishes patterns corresponding to adverse network conditions.
Manganaris established patterns corresponding to non-adverse network
conditions.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added). However, this argument is not
persuasive because, inter alia, as discussed supra Appellant’s specification
includes alarms as an explicit example of adverse network conditions. We
are therefore not persuaded that “the existence of an alarm does not signify a
pattern of events corresponding to an abnormal (or adverse) network
condition.” Reply Br. 2. Thus, although an alarm according to Manganaris
may be based on either (i) normal conditions that are not associated with
unusual occurrences or (ii) abnormal conditions that are associated with
unusual occurrences, we agree with the Examiner that an alarm as disclosed
by Manganaris meets the claimed adverse network condition.
Appellant further contends that “[i]n Manganaris, the alarm only
indicates that an uncommon event has occurred and is not specific to any
particular uncommon event.” App. Br. 7. However, this argument is not
commensurate in scope with claim 1 which does not require that the adverse
network condition be “specific” to any particular event, whether uncommon
or otherwise.
Appellant further argues that, according to Manganaris, “a pattern of a
particular adverse network condition is not examined or searched, such that
the pattern for the adverse network condition is stored.” Id. The Examiner
responds that Manganaris discloses that “[c]ontextual information is used to
determine patterns” which “are compared with incoming event data and
Appeal 2010-005743
Application 11/487,248

6
unusual occurrences are flagged” and that Manganaris’s disclosure of
updating patterns inherently requires storing the data indicative of the
patterns. Ans. 5-6 (citations omitted). We agree with the Examiner. We
further note that Appellant’s own characterization of the prior art describing
that “Manganaris searches a database of historical data for patterns
corresponding to non-adverse network conditions” (Reply Br. 3) is itself
consistent with and supports the position of the Examiner that data indicative
of the patterns is stored.
For the reasons presented supra, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1.
Claim 2
Appellant argues that
Manganaris discloses that patterns of commonly occurring
events are attempted to be identified and does not disclose
monitoring for matches between patterns and sequences that
precede an adverse network condition. As such, Manganaris
discloses triggering an alarm to indicate an unusual condition in
general has been detected and does not disclose issuing a
warning identifying the particular adverse network condition
associated with a matched pattern.

App. Br. 8-9.
The Examiner responds that “Manganaris described an invention in
which incoming events are compared to historical data, i.e. run-time
monitoring of events. Manganaris compares the events to patterns, itemsets,
and rules looking for a match” and “[d]etecting a partial match, i.e. detecting
patterns that are missing an expected event, signify an unusual occurrence
and are flagged, i.e. a warning is issued.” Ans. 6 (citing to paragraphs 53
and 50 of Manganaris). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that
Appeal 2010-005743
Application 11/487,248

7
Manganaris discloses the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, we note that
Manganaris additionally discloses that rare events are identified as probable
“true” alarm conditions and also trigger an alarm. Manganaris para. [0053].
Therefore, because Appellant has not persuasively argued that the Examiner
erred, we sustain the rejection of claim 2.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Manganaris or in rejecting the remaining claims falling therewith.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13 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

msc