CA, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 21, 2021

2020002351 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2021)

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.
15/386,532 12/21/2016 Kiran Prakash Diwakar 104.IN20170087US1 8592
121312 7590 07/21/2021
Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation
3000 K Street N.W
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
RAHMAN, SM AZIZUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2021 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):
cmckenna@foley.com
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIRAN PRAKASH DIWAKAR
Appeal 2020-002351
Application 15/386,532
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5 and 21–36. See Final Act. 2.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CA, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002351
Application 15/386,532
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Applicant, the claimed invention generally relates to the
field of data processing, and more particularly, “to data analytics and
presentation that may be utilized for higher level operations.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:

based on configuration information of a first of multiple target
system entities in a network being monitored by different monitoring
systems, determining an operational association between the first target
system entity and a second of the target system entities, wherein each
of the target system entities is a system, subsystem, or component of
the network and wherein the monitoring systems collect performance
data about the target system entities; and
determining a correlation between first performance data of the first
target system entity and second performance data of the second target
system entity based, at least in part, on the operational association between
the first and second target system entities and time of the first and second
performance data, wherein a first of the monitoring systems collected or
derived the first performance data and a second of the monitoring systems
collected or derived the second performance data; and
indicating for display the correlation of the first and the second
performance data for the first and the second target system entities.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
McNaughton US 2008/0052393 A1 Feb. 28, 2008
Nair US 2017/0310546 A1 Oct. 26, 2017

Appeal 2020-002351
Application 15/386,532
3
REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5 and 21–36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over McNaughton in view of Nair. Final Act. 2–7.

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–3, 5, 21–36 103 McNaughton, Nair
OPINION
A. Claim 1–3, 5, and 21–36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
1. “based on configuration information of a first of multiple target
system entities being monitored by different monitoring systems,
determining an operation association between the first target
system entity and a second of the target system entities”
Appellant argues that, although the Examiner cites to McNaughton for
teaching or suggesting this limitation, the cited passage “refers to
determining network performance information and does not recite
determining an operational association or using configuration information.”
Appeal Br. 9. Further, according to Appellant, “[t]o the extent McNaughton
discloses configuration information for system entities, it is to describe how
the entities operate and not to associate the operation of one system entity
with another entity.” Id.
Appellant further argues that, although the Examiner relies on
McNaughton’s configuration of 802.1 AG packets with a Y.1731 protocol,
the configuration “allows for monitoring the Ethernet network path and
diagnosing connectivity faults.” Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant,
there is no “operational association determined between the ends and mid-
points in the Ethernet tunnel.” Id.
Appeal 2020-002351
Application 15/386,532
4
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner explains that McNaughton
teaches “a series of network communication devices [] configured to receive
a PIP (Performance Information Packet) data packet containing network
performance information so that the network performance information
associated with different node segments (target system entities) can be easily
identified.” See Ans. 3 (citing McNaughton ¶¶ 165–168, Figs. 18–19). The
Examiner also finds that McNaughton teaches “‘stitching’ of network
performance information along a transmission path,” wherein network
performance information is continuously concatenated in PIP data packets
“across a transmission path from end-to-end [to] provide[] a complete
description of the transmission path with detailed viewing of network
performance information associated with each connection,” including
other network segments. Id. at 4. Giving “operational association” its
broadest, reasonable interpretation, the Examiner concludes that, “if
segments are along the same path they operate in association and the stitched
information shows that association along the path.” Id.
In response to Examiner’s Answer, Appellant argues that the
Examiner incorrectly applies a definition of “operation association” that is
inconsistent with the remainder of the claims and the specification in order
to justify the rejection of independent claims 1, 26 and 35. See Reply Br. 2.
In particular, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s interpretation of
“operationally associated” to comprise of “using the same communication
path, and that this association is shown by the fact that the resulting PIP
packet includes monitoring information from each device” to be incorrect.
Id. at 3. According to Appellant, “operationally associated” cannot be
interpreted as being “along the same path . . . and the stitched information”
because the claim as a whole requires that the “operational association”
Appeal 2020-002351
Application 15/386,532
5
between the first and second entities is determined based on configuration
information of the first target system entity. Id. Appellant further argues
that McNaughton’s PIP packet does not meet the scope of “configuration
information of a first entity” as claimed because the claimed invention
requires that “the system determines an association between a first entity and
a second entity based on an identification of the second entity within target
system configuration information of the first entity.” Id. at 3–4 (citing Spec.
¶¶ 50–51).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Here, the claim
language at issue simply recites determining an “operation association”
“based on configuration information.” See claim 1. However, the
Specification does not explicitly define “operation association.” See
generally Spec. Instead, the only part of the Specification that mentions
“operational association” simply states that the “log management host may
utilize operational associations between target system entities residing in
different service domains to determine the performance correlation.” See
Specification ¶ 56.
In our review, we give “operational association” its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, we will not read
limitations from the Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). That is, although the broadest reasonable
interpretation must take into account any definitions given in the
Specification, it is improper to read into the claims limitations from
examples given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321–22 (Fed.
Cir. 1989). See also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
Appeal 2020-002351
Application 15/386,532
6
As the Examiner finds, McNaughton teaches a series of network
communications devices or node segments that are configured to receive a
PIP packet containing network performance information so that the network
performance information associated with different node segments (target
system entities) can be easily identified. See Ans. 3. According to the
Examiner, the network devices or node segments taught by McNaughton are
operationally associated based on the configuration information because the
node segments work together to receive the concatenated PIP packets. Id.;
McNaughton ¶ 163. In particular, McNaughton teaches a “PIP packet with
the appended network performance information [that] continues and
triggers the same performance measurements (PM) or network
performance information pull at the next network node.” McNaughton
¶ 163 (emphasis added). As such, given the Examiner’s broadest reasonable
interpretation, McNaughton teaches an “operational association” of the next
network node based on the same configuration information associated with
the previous network node. Id.
On this record, we are unconvinced the Examiner’s interpretation of
“operational association” is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with
Appellant’s Specification. Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s
reliance on McNaughton, in view of Nair, for teaching or at least suggesting
a “based on configuration information of a first of multiple target system
entities being monitored by different monitoring systems, determining an
operation association between the first target system entity and a second of
the target system entities,” as recited in claim 1.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s newly added argument in
the Reply Brief that McNaughton uses “a single monitoring device that
receives the ‘stitched’ or concatenated PIP packet,” instead of two different
Appeal 2020-002351
Application 15/386,532
7
monitoring entities as required by the claim. Reply Br. 4. This argument is
entitled to no consideration because it was presented for the first time in the
reply brief. Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469
F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for the first time in the reply
brief that could have been raised in the opening brief is waived); accord Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473–74 (BPAI 2010) (informative
opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to
address an argument newly presented in the reply brief that could have been
presented in the principal brief on appeal). Nonetheless, we note
McNaughton teaches a CCM 10 with a plurality of transmission collection
units 306 (30a–306c) that “may monitor and/or inspect the PIP data packets
302 to determine rates of total data packets and bandwidth, real-time data
packets and bandwidth, and non-real-time data packets being communicated
over a network segment. See McNaughton ¶ 110; Fig. 3.
2. “correlation between first performance data of the first target
system entity and between first performance data of the first target
system entity and second performance data of the second target
system entity based, at least in part, on the operational association
between the first and second target system entities”
Appellant further argues that McNaughton fails to teach “determining
a correlation between data packets,” wherein McNaughton’s “[d]isplaying
metadata for data packets cannot be reasonably interpreted as determining a
correlation between data packets.” Appeal Br. 10–11. According to
Appellant, “[d]etermining how a packet network operates for different
content types cannot be equated to determining a correlation between data
packets” because “it consists of ‘understanding how the packet network is
operating,’ and does not consist of comparing individual data packets in the
network.” Id. at 12.
Appeal 2020-002351
Application 15/386,532
8
The Examiner finds that McNaughton teaches that “network
performance information measured may use multiple bins to store data
collected over a period of time,” wherein the network performance
information “may be stored in tables at each of the nodes in the
transmission path and/or one or more network devices may receive and
store the network performance information in tables meaning the table will
display the correlated data between the performance data of the target
system entities.” Ans. 5 (citing McNaughton ¶¶ 164, 168). The Examiner
refers to McNaughton’s table IV which “shows that each segment is
associated with performance data, and they are within the table because they
are [configured to receive concatenated PIP data] along the same path (the
operation association between the entities) that helps determine from the
performance data obtained from all the entities within the transmission path
which reflects if anything is affecting the performance of the path and how
they are correlated.” Id. at 4–5 (citing McNaughton Table IV).
In response to the Examiner’s Answer, Appellant argues that the
Examiner confuses “correlated” with “collected,” wherein “correlation”
should be defined as a “mutual or reciprocal relation” or “causal
relationship” between different data items. See Reply Br. 4–5. However,
we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument (id.) which is not
commensurate in scope with the recited claim language. In particular,
Appellant’s Specification does not explicitly define “correlation,” and
although the Specification provides exemplary embodiments of
“correlation,” it does not provide any specific definition. See generally
Spec. Although, as an example, the Specification states that “determined
performance correlation may be a relation between the level of CPU
utilization and response times for the application server” (Spec. ¶ 51
Appeal 2020-002351
Application 15/386,532
9
(emphasis added)), it is important not to import into a claim limitations that
are not part of the claim. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Here, the Examiner finds that McNaughton’s network performance
tables display the correlated data between the performance data of the target
system entities. See Ans. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds that
McNaughton teaches a table showing performance information of network
nodes along the same transmission path to be connected, or at the very least,
showing a comparison of the performance information of the nodes. Id.
(citing McNaughton ¶¶ 164, 168, Table IV).
McNaughton’s Table IV, reproduced below, shows an exemplary
embodiment of a “Network Segment Status Table – Total and Real-Time.”

McNaughton 15. Table IV shows network performance information for
determining “an understanding of how the packet network is operating for
different content types.” McNaughton ¶ 139. As shown in Table IV, the
different Node Segments, e.g. 1316a and 1316n, comprise various
performance measurements grouped according to the type of measurement,
such as “Total Delay,” “Total Jitter,” and “Total Packet Loss.”
We find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Table IV for
showing various nodes being connected or compared with each other. Given
the broadest reasonable interpretation of “correlated,” we agree with the
Appeal 2020-002351
Application 15/386,532
10
Examiner’s finding that McNaughton teaches “correlated data”, i.e., a
comparison of performance metrics of the target system entities. See Ans. 5.
In fact, McNaughton’s Table IV is similar to the claimed invention’s
“performance correlation table 238” of Figure 2. Compare Spec. Fig. 2, ,
with McNaughton Table IV.
The Specification’s Figure 2’s “performance correlation table 238” of
the claimed invention is reproduced below.

Spec. ¶ 34, Fig. 2. Figure 2’s performance correlation table 238 shows
relationships between the various alarms, such as “ALARM_1,”
“ALARM_2,” and “ALARM_4.” As shown in table 238, the different
entities, e.g. TSE_1.1 and TSE_1.2, comprise performance measurements
grouped according to the type of measurement, such as
“PERF_DEPENDENCY.” Id.; see also id. ¶ 50.
On this record, we find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on
McNaughton, in view of Nair, for teaching or at least suggesting a
“correlation between first performance data of the first target system entity
and between first performance data of the first target system entity and
second performance data of the second target system entity based, at least in
part, on the operational association between the first and second target
system entities,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2020-002351
Application 15/386,532
11
Appellant does not provide arguments for independent claims 26 and
35 reciting similar limitations, and the respective dependent claims, separate
from those of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13. Thus, for the
reasons set forth above, we also affirm the rejection of these claims over the
McNaughton and Nair combination.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 5 and 21–36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over McNaughton and Nair.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 21–
36
103 McNaughton, Nair 1–3, 5, 21–
36

Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5, 21–
36

RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED