Anand Srinivas et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 25, 2019

14520238 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2019)

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.
14/520,238 10/21/2014 Anand Srinivas 700186.401 7310
136767 7590 07/25/2019
Seed IP Law Group LLP/General Firm (Email)
701 FIFTH AVE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
ZHANG, SHIRLEY X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2442
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2019 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANAND SRINIVAS, RICHARD BARRY,
ABRAHAM ANKUMAH, and DANIEL KAN
____________

Appeal 2018-008538
Application 14/520,2381
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final Action
rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is “Nyansa, Inc.”
App. Br. 2.
2 Our decision relies upon the Non-Final Action mailed August 17, 2017
(“Non-Final”), Appeal Brief filed April 3, 2018 (“App. Br.”), Answer
mailed June 28, 2018 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief filed August 28, 2018
(“Reply”).
Appeal 2018-008538
Application 14/520,238

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention “relates to . . . observing and controlling a
programmable network via higher layer attributes.” Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is a representative claim. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(representative claims).
1. A system for simultaneously and centrally analyzing a
plurality of networks, the system comprising:
one or more collectors configured to receive network traffic
data from a plurality of network elements in the plurality of
networks, wherein a first network of the plurality of networks is
from a first company and a second network of the plurality of
networks is from a second company;
a remote network manager comprising a network interface and
configured to connect to the one or more collectors over the
Internet via the network interface, and further configured to
simultaneously and centrally analyze (1) the network traffic
data from the plurality of network elements in the plurality of
networks and (2) network management data from a plurality of
enterprise systems in the plurality of networks, wherein the
network management data includes L1 through L7 network
topology data, network configuration data, and simple network
management protocol data;
wherein the one or more collectors extract metadata from the
network traffic data and send the metadata to the remote
network manager;
wherein the remote network manager combines the network
traffic data from the plurality of networks and the network
management data from the plurality of enterprise systems in the
plurality of networks into combined cross-network data from
multiple companies, simultaneously and centrally analyzes the
combined cross-network data from the multiple companies
within the plurality of networks, learns a pattern from the first
network of the first company within the plurality of networks,
Appeal 2018-008538
Application 14/520,238

3

and applies the pattern to the second network of the second
company within the plurality of networks.
App. Br. 21 (claims appendix).
RELATED APPEALS
The present application claims a benefit of priority (i.e., of the filing
date) to U.S. Provisional Application 61/893,789. Spec. ¶ 2. The following
three applications also claim this benefit and have appeals before the Board:
U.S. Applications 14/520,257 (Appeal 2018-008815), 14/520,245 (Appeal
2018-008813), and 14/520,262 (Appeal 2018-008540).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS3
Claims 1, 2, 4–14, and 16–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Herold et al. (US 9,215,142 B1; Dec. 15, 2015). Non-Final 6–
13.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Herold
and Agarwal et al. (US 2015/0085694 A1; Mar. 26, 2015). Non-Final 13–
14.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Herold and Friedman et al. (US 2013/0117847 A1; May 9, 2013).
Non-Final 14–15.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is representative of claims 2, 4–14, and 16–20. See
37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellants do not assert separate bases of

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the nonstatutory double patenting rejections
against copending applications 14/520,245, 14/520,250, 14/529,257, and
14/520,238. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2018-008538
Application 14/520,238

4

patentability for remaining claims 3 and 15. App. Br. 18. We accordingly
limit our analysis to claim 1. Appellants’ arguments, addressed below, are
directed to the claimed “analyze (1) the network traffic data from the
plurality of network elements in the plurality of networks and (2) network
management data from a plurality of enterprise systems in the plurality of
networks, wherein the network management data includes L1 through L7
network topology data, network configuration data, and simple network
management protocol data.” Id. at 14–16.
A first issue is whether the Examiner errs in addressing the claim
requirement to analyze data for “network” traffic, management, topologies,
and configurations. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4–5. The Examiner finds
Herold’s invention analyzes network data by analyzing usages of “network”
switches, hardware, and bandwidth. Ans. 2–3 (citing Herold col. 3, ll. 47–
60; col. 5, ll. 3–7; Figs. 1, 4). The Examiner further finds Appellants’
Specification does not describe the claimed “network management data” and
thereby conveys this data as being well known. Ans. 3.
Appellants contend Herold “focus[es] . . . on ‘system-centric’
information, while in contrast, [claim 1] recites a ‘network-centric’
invention.” App. Br. 14. Appellants further contend their Specification
describes the claimed network management data as “data from a network
management system” (internal quotations omitted) and, therefore, the
Examiner cannot “dismiss” this data as being well known. Reply Br. 4–5.
We are unpersuaded of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
Herold’s system analyzes network data by analyzing usages of “network”
resources. Ans. 2–5. Appellants cannot rebut this finding by, as here,
summarily characterizing the claimed invention and Herold’s invention as
Appeal 2018-008538
Application 14/520,238

5

respectively “network-centric” and “system-centric.” Appellants must, but
do not, articulate a distinction. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (applicants must “articulate what gaps, in fact, exist”).
Further, the Examiner does not dismiss the claimed network
management data. The Examiner finds, and we agree, “network
management data” is not described by the Specification, consequently
applies the broadest ordinary meanings of these terms, and accordingly reads
the claimed network management data on Herold’s data collected and
analyzed to manage networks. Ans. 3.
A second issue is whether the Examiner errs in addressing the claimed
analysis of “L1 through L7 network topology data” (herein “L1–L7 topology
data”). App. Br. 14–15; Reply Br. 5–6. The Examiner finds Herold teaches
“the data collection module may store data models such as topology
models.” Non-Final 7 (citing Herold col. 5, ll. 62–67; col. 11, ll. 19–40).
The Examiner further finds Appellants’ Specification does not describe L1–
L7 topology data, thereby conveys L1–L7 topology data as well known, and
accordingly evidences it would have been obvious to include L1–L7
topology data within Herold’s topology models. Id.; Ans. 4.
Appellants acknowledge Herold teaches topology models, but contend
Herold cannot suggest the claimed L1–L7 topology data because “nowhere
in Herold is L1 through L7 network data even mentioned.” App. Br. 15.
Appellants further contend their Specification describes L1–L7 topology
data and, therefore, the Examiner cannot “dismiss” this data as well known.
Reply Br. 5 (citing Spec. ¶ 84).
We are unpersuaded of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, L1–
L7 topology data was a well-known type of network topology data and,
Appeal 2018-008538
Application 14/520,238

6

therefore, would have been obvious to include within Herold’s topology
models. Ans. 3. Appellants cannot rebut these findings by, as here, merely
contending their Specification discloses L1–L7 topology data. Reply Br. 5–
6. Assuming an adequate disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the scant
description evidences the L1–L7 topology data was well known inasmuch
the Specification would otherwise not “enable [an artisan] . . . to make and
use” the data. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).4 Because Appellants fail to sufficiently
address this issue and do not expressly dispute L1–L7 topology data was a
well-known type of network topology data, we agree with the Examiner’s
official notice and consequent determination of obviousness. See In re
Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971) (An adequate challenge to official
notice “creates a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the
. . . notice.”); see also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(“After a prima facie case . . . , the burden of . . . [r]ebuttal is . . . a showing
of facts supporting the opposite conclusion.”); Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 2144.03.C (“To adequately traverse [official notice], an
applicant must . . . stat[e] why the noticed fact is not . . . well-known.”).

4 The Office has expressly endorsed this reasoning for rejections under
35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112(a), stating “the analysis [under § 101] as to
whether an element . . . [was] widely prevalent or in common use is the
same as the analysis under . . . § 112(a) as to whether an element is so well
known that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification.”
USPTO Memorandum of April 19, 2018, “Changes in Examination
Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter
Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” (Apr. 19, 2018) at 3
(available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF).

Appeal 2018-008538
Application 14/520,238

7

A third issue is whether the Examiner errs in addressing the claimed
analysis of “simple network management protocol data.” App. Br. 16;
Reply Br. 5–6. The Examiner finds the simple network management
protocol (herein “SNMP”) was a well-known protocol for monitoring
networks and, therefore, it would have been obvious for Herold’s analysis of
networks to include an analysis of SNMP data, e.g., if used to communicate
L1–L7 topology data. Ans. 5–6. In support, the Examiner cites U.S. Patent
Pub. No. 2003/0033402 A1 to Battat (published Feb. 13, 2003) as showing
SNMP was used to manage monitoring agents of networks. Id. (citing
Battat ¶ 164).
Appellants contend: “The Examiner [does not show] that SNMP is an
industry-standard protocol . . . designed to collect L1–L7 topology data.”
Reply Br. 6 (orig. ellipses and internal quotation marks omitted). Appellants
further contend “it would be impossible . . . because . . . SNMP is an
application layer (layer 7) protocol suite.” Id.
We are unpersuaded of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
SNMP was a well-known protocol for collecting data from monitoring
agents of networks and, therefore, would have been an obvious protocol for
Herold’s collecting of topology data such as L1–L7 topology data (discussed
supra, second issue). Ans. 5–6. Appellants cannot rebut these findings by,
as here, summarily alleging SNMP is a layer-specific protocol that
consequently cannot communicate L1–L7 topology data. Reply Br. 6–
7.Appellants’ contention fails to address Battat’s cited disclosure, present
sufficient evidence showing SNMP was a layer-specific protocol, and
present sufficient evidence showing a layer-specific protocol (assuming
SNMP is layer-specific) cannot communicate L1–L7 topology data.
Appeal 2018-008538
Application 14/520,238

8

A fourth issue is whether the Examiner errs in addressing the claimed
analysis of “network configuration data.” App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 6–7. The
Examiner finds Herold’s system recommends “network configuration
changes.” Ans. 5 (citing Herold col. 15, ll. 39–55; quoting ll. 52–53). The
Examiner further finds Herold’s system could not recommend the “network
configuration changes” without first analyzing network configuration data.
Id.
Appellants contend Herold teaches “system configuration data” and
thus “fail[s] to disclose network configuration data, or any equivalent
thereof” (italicizing removed). App. Br. 15 (citing Herold col. 3, ll. 26–29).
Appellants further contend the Examiner’s above inference is incorrect
inasmuch a system need not analyze network configuration data to generate
Herold’s cited recommendations for “network configuration changes” to
memory and processing. Reply Br. 7 (addressing Herold col. 15, ll. 39–55).
We are unpersuaded of error. As the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Herold teaches recommendations for “network configuration changes.”
Even assuming Herold’s invention could theoretically recommend such
changes without first analyzing network configuration data, those
recommendations are plainly sometimes based on monitored allocations of
network resources. See Herold col. 1, l. 35–col. 2, l. 34 (“summary”); col. 3,
ll. 7–32 (“introduction” and “system overview”) col. 14, ll. 51–53 (“[T]he
source of the recommendation [may] be . . . from community analysis.”);
Fig. 2 (steps 202, 210, 212). Ans. 5–6.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not establish an error in the
rejection of claim 1. We therefore sustain all rejections.
Appeal 2018-008538
Application 14/520,238

9

UNRESPONSIVE ARGUMENTS
For dependent claims 18–20, Appellants present separate arguments
that are not responsive to the Examiner’s findings.
For claims 18 and 19, Appellants merely contend the Non-Final
Action does not state how Herold teaches or suggests some claim
limitations. App. Br. 17. Even assuming Appellants are correct, they do not
contest the Examiner’s findings regarding the disputed claim features. See
Ans. 6–7. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
For claim 20, Appellants address both the Non-Final Action and
Answer. Reply Br. 7–8. Appellants again contend the Non-Final Action
does not state how Herold teaches or suggests some claim limitations.
App. Br. 17. Appellants additionally contend the Examiner’s finding also
fails to discuss one of the disputed claim features—namely a claimed
“protocol.” Reply Br. 7–8. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error.
Claim 20 recites, in relevant part, “the system learns a pattern by identifying
. . . [a] protocol.” See Reply Br. 8 (“nowhere . . . is there a mention of the
system learning a pattern by identifying a protocol, as required by claim
20”). As Appellants acknowledge, the Examiner reads this claimed learning
of a pattern on Herold’s extraction of statistics from monitoring data. The
Examiner finds that Herold’s monitoring data be communicated as SNMP
data (see supra, third issue). Thus, the Examiner reads the claimed “learn[]
a pattern by identifying . . . [a] protocol” on Herold’s extraction of statistics
(“learn[] a pattern”) from proposed SNMP data (“by identifying . . . [a]
protocol”). Appellants do not sufficiently address this pertinent finding and,
therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20.
Appeal 2018-008538
Application 14/520,238

10

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20.
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