Ex Parte Strub et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

11549149 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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