Ex Parte Sahita et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 25, 2009

09823185 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 25, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte RAVI L. SAHITA and DAVID M. DURHAM
__________

Appeal 2008-1646
Application 09/823,185
Technology Center 2400
__________

Decided:1 February 25, 2009
__________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-1646
Application 09/823,185

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 and 35-47. Claims 19-34 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to a managed network of
nodes (Spec. 1-2). Specifically, a component acts as a compiler that
translates an abstract description of a configuration into elementary
operations that are supported by SNMP (Simple Network Management
Protocol) for operating in a network node (Spec. 2).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A managed node comprising:

a first database having metadata that is received from a remote
source and that is descriptive of data stored in a second database;

a first process in communication with said second database; and

a second process in communication with said first process
through a first protocol, said second process receiving communication
transmitted across a network using a second protocol and having
access to said metadata in said first database for translation between
said first and second protocols.

Appeal 2008-1646
Application 09/823,185

3
The References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Champlin US 6,519,635 B1 Feb. 11, 2003
(filed Apr. 30, 1998)
Pan US 6,775,701 B1 Aug. 10, 2004
(filed Aug. 15, 2000)
Ramberg US 6,857,013 B2 Feb. 15, 2005
(filed Jan. 29, 1999)

The Rejections
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Champlin and
Ramberg.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 35-43 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Champlin, Ramberg
and Pan.

ISSUE #1
Appellants assert that “Champlin translates between formats within
the same SNMP protocol” but does not disclose “access to metadata in a first
database for translation between protocols” (App. Br. 13). Appellants also
assert that Ramberg discloses an “adjustment of data format, not a
translation across data communication protocols” (Reply Br. 1).
Appeal 2008-1646
Application 09/823,185

4
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Champlin and/or Ramberg teaches or suggests a process for translating
between a first and a second protocol?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Champlin discloses a “simple network management protocol
(SNMP) protocol data unit (PDU) translation mechanism” (col. 4, ll.
23-25) which “includes translating information data for an SNMP
sub-agent and an SNMP command . . . from [a] first format to a
second format” (col. 4, ll. 33-36).
2. Champlin discloses that “an SNMP PDU . . . [has] identification data
for an SNMP sub-agent and an SNMP command” (col. 4, ll. 25-27)
and “is used to access a translation table 70 associated with the
SNMP master agent 64” (col. 4, ll. 59-61) to “designate the managed
object” (col. 4, ll. 61-62).
3. Champlin discloses that “after the SNMP PDU 68 has been parsed”
(col. 4, l. 67), “the translation table 70 may be accessed using
information from the SNMP PDU 68 data field” (col. 4, ll. 65-66),
that “is used to directly access an associated database record which
specifies the managed object to be controlled (col. 5, ll. 3-4).
Appeal 2008-1646
Application 09/823,185

5
4. Ramberg discloses devices that “operate under different protocols”
of which “the MIB 240 includes information” (col. 7, ll. 52-54).
5. Ramberg discloses “SNMP subagents 211 and 212 translate between
the communications protocol of ADC devices 101 and 102 and the
standardized SNMP protocol using information from the MIB 240”
(col. 7, ll. 55-58).
6. Pan discloses that network devices communicate “via one or more
protocols” (col. 8, l. 54), including “SNMP (Simple Network
management Protocol), COPS-RSVP, [and] COPS-PR (Common
Open Policy Service-Provisioning)” (col. 8, ll. 56-58).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007).

“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim
extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1742 (2007). In KSR, the Supreme Court
emphasized "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the
combination of elements found in the prior art," Id. at 1739, and discussed
Appeal 2008-1646
Application 09/823,185

6
circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1739 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12
(1966)). The Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that "[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Id. The
operative question in this "functional approach" is thus "whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions." Id. at 1740.

ANALYSIS (ISSUE #1)
Ramberg discloses “SNMP subagents 211 and 212 [that] translate
between the communications protocol of ADC devices . . . and the
standardized SNMP protocol” (col. 7, ll. 55-57) (FF 5). Thus, Ramberg
discloses a translation between a first protocol (i.e., communication protocol
of ADC devices) and a second protocol (i.e., the standardized SNMP
protocol). In view of Ramberg’s explicit disclosure of translating between a
first protocol and a second protocol, we disagree with Appellants’ contention
that Ramberg fails to disclose translating between a first and a second
protocol.
Appellants argue that “although Ramberg states that ‘SNMP sub-
agents 211 and 212 translate between the communication protocols of ADC
devices,’ (col. 7 lines 55-56), what Ramberg means is that the SNMP agents
access the MIB to determine what pieces of information it can modify or
Appeal 2008-1646
Application 09/823,185

7
view” (Reply Br. 2). We disagree. Ramberg discloses that “ADC devices
may operate under different protocols, and the MIB 240 includes
information related to these protocols” (col. 7, ll. 53-55). Therefore, the
MIB of Ramberg contains protocol information. If the MIB of Ramberg
contains information pertaining to different protocols and SNMP sub-agents
of Ramberg translate between the protocols using the information (of the
different protocols) from the MIB as Ramberg explicitly discloses, we find
no distinction between translating from one protocol to another protocol of
Ramberg and translating from one protocol to another protocol as recited in
claim 1. Also, in view of Ramberg’s explicit disclosure of sub-agents that
“translate” between protocols, we find Appellants’ argument that Ramberg
actually means something other than translating to be unavailing.
Independent claims 3, 9, 13, 35, and 37 each recite equivalent
limitations to those discussed above regarding claim 1. Therefore, for at
least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants have not
sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 and 35-40, 44-
47 with respect to issue #1.

ISSUE #2
Appellants assert that there is no motivation to combine Ramberg and
Champlin because “Champlin does not disclose a need to communicate with
devices operated under different protocols” (App. Br. 11-12) and that
Appeal 2008-1646
Application 09/823,185

8
“having to now translate between two protocols, would have no doubt struck
one of ordinary skill in the art as unnecessarily complex” (App. Br. 12).
Appellants also argue that combining Champlin and Ramberg “amounts to a
piecemeal combination of components selectively culled from the prior art”
and constitutes “an impermissible hindsight combination based on
Appellant’s design” (App. Br. 13).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of Ramberg and Champlin?

ANALYSIS (ISSUE #2)
Champlin discloses a system in which an SNMP master agent receives
an SNMP PDU and parses the SNMP PDU to access a database record in a
translation table that specifies the managed object to be controlled (FF 1-3).
Information obtained from the translation table is thereby used to “translate”
the received information in the SNMP PDU to a format usable by a
secondary processor system in a network. Ramberg discloses translation of
information corresponding to a protocol into another protocol, such as a
standardized SNMP protocol (FF 4-5).
There are a finite number of methods that one of ordinary skill in the
art may employ to translate data (such as a protocol) from one form to
another. For example, one familiar method as disclosed by either Champlin
or Ramberg may involve obtaining information from a data source (e.g., a
Appeal 2008-1646
Application 09/823,185

9
translation table (Champlin) or a MIB (Ramberg)) and utilizing the obtained
data to translate data from one form to another. Ramberg further discloses a
known method of translating data representing a first protocol (e.g., a
communications protocol of ADC devices) into a second protocol (e.g., a
standardized SNMP protocol). Champlin and Ramberg both disclose known
methods of translation of data that, when combined, would have resulted in a
predictable result of obtaining translated data that is usable in a secondary
processing system of a network of devices. Because Appellants have not
demonstrated that the combination of Champlin and Ramberg would have
entailed anything more than the rearrangement of known elements (i.e., of
translating data from one form to a second form that is usable in a secondary
processing system of a network) to result in a predictable result of obtaining
such translated data, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosures of
Champlin and Ramberg. “The combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739. “[W]hen a patent ‘simply
arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been
known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious.” Id. at 1740 (citing Sakraida v.
AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
Appeal 2008-1646
Application 09/823,185

10
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6,
8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18, and 44-47 with respect to issue #2.

ISSUE #3
Appellants assert that “[t]here is no motivation to combine the
teachings of Pan with Ramberg and Champlin” (App. Br. 14). Appellants
also assert that the combination of Champlin, Ramberg, and Pan “amounts to
a piecemeal combination of components” and is therefore based on
“impermissible hindsight” (App. Br. 15).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of Pan with Ramberg and Champlin?

ANALYSIS (ISSUE #3)
As set forth above, Ramberg and Champlin disclose translating data,
such as protocol data (Ramberg) for use in a network using SNMP agents
and sub-agents. Pan discloses a common protocol for such use as a COPS
protocol (FF 6). Appellants have failed to demonstrate that such a
rearrangement of known elements of translating one protocol to another
protocol (Ramberg and/or Champlin), where one common protocol includes
a COPS protocol (Pan) would have been beyond the purview of one of
ordinary skill in the art or would have resulted in an unpredictable or
unexpected outcome. Indeed, such a combination appears to entail no more
Appeal 2008-1646
Application 09/823,185

11
than mere common sense on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art.
“[T]he common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some
combinations would have been obvious where others would not.” Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007)).
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 7, 10,
14, 17, and 35-43 with respect to issue #3.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in:
1. finding that Champlin and/or Ramberg teaches or suggests a
process for translating between a first and a second protocol (issue #1),
2. concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ramberg and Champlin (issue
#2), and
3. concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine the teachings of Pan with Ramberg and Champlin
(issue #3).

Appeal 2008-1646
Application 09/823,185

12
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 and 35-47
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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

rwk

FISH & RICHARDSON, PC
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022