Ex Parte Strub et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201711549149 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) 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. 11/549,149 10/13/2006 Lyle Strub ALC 3987 6495 76614 7590 03/29/2017 Terry W. Kramer, Esq. Kramer & Amado, P.C. 330 John Carlyle Street 3rd Floor Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER GOLDBERG, ANDREW C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2100 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2017 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): mail@krameramado.com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LYLE STRUB, LAURA MIHAELA SERGHI, and MING YU YAO Appeal 2015-004552 Application 11/549,1491 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JESSICA C. KAISER, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5—12, 14—18, 20, and 25—30, all of the pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. Br. 2. 2 Claims 3,4, 13, 19, and 21—24 have been canceled. Id. Appeal 2015-004552 Application 11/549,149 EXEMPLARY CLAIM Independent claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below. 1. A system comprising: a group manager configured to manage a plurality of network service user groups, each network service user group comprising at least one member, and to manage associations between the network service user groups and network services that are provided by one or more network service provider systems within an administrative domain of a communication system, the associations to restrict usage of each network service to members of network service user groups having an association with the network service, the plurality of network service user groups and the network services comprising a network service user group and a network service for a self- managed service offering and a network service user group and a network service for an externally-managed service offering; a configuration interface operatively coupled to the group manager, the configuration interface enabling the group manager to receive group configuration information for the plurality of network service user groups and service information for the network services from a configuration system within the administrative domain, the group manager being configured to manage configuration of the network service user group for the self-managed service offering based on the received group configuration information and to manage an association between the network service user group and the network service for the self-managed service offering based on the received service information; and an external interface operatively coupled to the group manager, the external interface enabling the group manager to send, to an external group manager that is implemented outside the administrative domain, group configuration information for the network service user group for the externally-managed service offering, and service information for the network service for the externally-managed service offering, the external group manager being configured to manage configuration of the network service user group for the externally-managed service 2 Appeal 2015-004552 Application 11/549,149 offering based on the group configuration information sent to the external group manager by the group manager and to manage an association between the network service user group and the network service for the externally-managed service offering based on the service information sent to the external group manager by the group manager, at least one of the group manager, the configuration interface, and the external interface being implemented using hardware. REJECTIONS The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 5—8, 10-12, 14—17, 20, 25, 26, 28,3 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Chan (Jonathan Chan et al., Enterprise Collaborative Contexts and their Provisioning for Secure Managed Extranets, Proceedings of the 15th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises (June 28, 2006)). Final Act. 2—9. The Examiner has rejected claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chan. Final Act. 9-12. The Examiner has rejected claims 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chan and French (US 2006/0150243 Al; published July 6, 2006). Final Act. 13—14. ANALYSIS Regarding independent claim 1, Appellants argue “[i]n Chan, there does not appear to be any single participant in a collaboration that has 3 The Examiner confirms that inclusion of claim 28 under a Section 103 rejection was a clerical error, and that claim 28 is rejected under Section 102(a). Ans. 9. 3 Appeal 2015-004552 Application 11/549,149 primary responsibility for management of an e-contract or collaboration.” Br. 7. Thus, Appellants argue, in Chan, there is “no management of a self- managed service offering and management control for an externally- managed service offering by one group manager, as claimed.” Id. Appellants further argue Chan does not disclose the concepts of direct self management and indirect external management recited in claim 1 and Chan does not disclose self-managed and externally-managed service offerings as recited in claim 1. Id. We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments. Chan relates to secure managed extranets which allow collaboration between participants. Chan Abstract. Chan discloses that a virtual network operator (“VNO”) “can act as a trusted intermediary to manage collaborations for an inherently distrustful environment; i.e. the VNO acts as an impartial third-party ‘honest broker’ among all participants who may be adversarial.” Id. § 2. In creating a virtual private extranet service, Chan discloses that an initiator participant creates a draft e-contract and distributes it to the other nominated participants. Id. § 3.2. Each nominated participant can update and approve the draft e-contract. Id. Once all of the participants agree, the requisite network infrastructure is deployed. Id. After deployment, any change to the e-contract is disseminated for approval by the participants. Id. Regarding Appellants’ argument that Chan does not disclose a single participant with “primary responsibility” for managing e-contract negotiations (Br. 7), we agree with the Examiner that such a limitation is not recited in claim 1 (Ans. 3, 5). In addition, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s finding that Chan discloses both self-managed and externally-managed service offerings. Specifically, the Examiner finds 4 Appeal 2015-004552 Application 11/549,149 Chan’s initiator VNO, which initiates the negotiation of an e-contract, is implementing “self-managed service offerings.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that an e-contract initiated or re-negotiated by another participant is an “externally managed service offering” in Chan. Id. The Examiner finds each VNO is “managing” both types of offerings because each influences the negotiation or renegotiation of the e-contract. Id.; see also id. at 7 (finding Chan discloses the group manager sending group configuration information to an external group manager when a non initiating participant sends offerings and descriptors to an initiating participant) (citing Chan § 3.2). Appellants have not persuasively responded to these findings and thus have not persuaded us of error in them. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (An appeal “does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de novo review of all aspects of a rejection.”). We have reviewed Appellants’ remaining arguments, but do not find them persuasive of Examiner error. For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject independent claim 1, and independent claim 14 and dependent claims 2, 5—8, 10—12, 15—17, 20, 25, 26, 28, and 30, which Appellants do not separately argue (Br. 13—14). For the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of dependent claims 9, 18, 27, and 29, Appellants rely on their arguments for claim 1. Br. 14—15. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find those arguments persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9, 18, 27, and 29. 5 Appeal 2015-004552 Application 11/549,149 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5—8, 10—12, 14—17, 20, 25, 26, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Chan is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chan is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chan and French 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation