CommScope Technologies LLC et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2022

2021001457 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2022)

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. 16/141,784 09/25/2018 Trevor D. Smith ADC004441/100.1243US02 6693 135878 7590 03/28/2022 Fogg & Powers LLC/Commscope 4600 W 77th St Suite 305 Minneapolis, MN 55435 EXAMINER PARK, JUNG H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2411 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2022 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): docketing@fogglaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TREVOR D. SMITH, KAMLESH G. PATEL, GENE MALONE and DAVID THOMAS ________________ Appeal 2021-001457 Application 16/141,784 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JASON J. CHUNG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-11, and 14-20.1 The Examiner has objected to claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 but otherwise indicated that these claims contain allowable subject matter. Final Act. 11.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies CommScope Technologies LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 In the Final Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under obviousness- type double patenting. Final Act. 3. The Examiner withdrew this rejection in a June 1, 2020 Advisory Action. Accordingly, this rejection is no longer before us and claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 have no pending rejections. Appeal 2021-001457 Application 16/141,784 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed subject matter relates to physical layer management technology that tracks connections made at patch panels or other inter- connection devices. Spec. ¶¶ 2-8. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: acquiring, using one or more physical layer information acquisition technologies, physical layer information related to cabling attached to managed devices of a plurality of networks, each of the networks operated by a different enterprise; and aggregating, with the one or more server computers operated by a third party, the physical layer information related to cabling attached to managed devices of each of the plurality of networks by the third party as a hosted service. The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Raza (US 2010/0211664 A1; Aug. 19, 2010) and Caveney (US 2011/0097925 A1; Apr. 28, 2011). Final Act. 5-11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. On this record, we find Appellant has not identified an error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Final Rejection and Answer. See Final Act. 5-11; Ans. 3-10. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because Raza and Caveney do not teach or suggest “aggregating, with the one or more server computers operated by a third party, the physical layer information Appeal 2021-001457 Application 16/141,784 3 related to cabling attached to managed devices of each of the plurality of networks by the third party as a hosted service.” Appeal Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 1-9. In particular, Appellant argues Raza teaches a system comprising a plurality of connector assemblies, such as patch panels, that include a plurality of ports. Appeal Br. 7. However, Appellant argues Raza teaches a single network that includes these assemblies and ports, not a plurality of networks as required by claim 1. Id. Appellant argues Raza, therefore, cannot teach aggregating physical layer information for “managed devices of each of the plurality of networks.” Id. Appellant also argues that Raza does not teach or suggest aggregating such information by a third party as a hosted service. Id. at 7-8. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Raza teaches aggregation point 120 is communicatively coupled to connector assemblies 102 via IP network 118. Ans. 5 (citing Raza ¶ 42). Aggregation point 120 obtains physical layer information from connector assemblies 102 and other devices. Id. (citing Raza ¶ 43). IP network 118 “can include one or more local area networks and/or wide area networks (including for example the Internet).” Id. at 6 (quoting Raza ¶ 57). Raza further teaches aggregation point 120 need not be located at the same site as the connector assemblies or other managed devices. Raza ¶ 57. Because IP network 118 can include a plurality of networks, each located at different sites, we agree with the Examiner that Raza teaches “aggregating . . . the physical layer information related to cabling attached to managed devices of each of the plurality of networks,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2021-001457 Application 16/141,784 4 Appellant’s argument that Raza does not teach or suggest aggregating by a third party as a hosted service is also unpersuasive of Examiner error. As noted above, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Raza teaches the aggregation point may be located at a different site than its managed devices, and the connected between the aggregation point and its managed devices may comprise the Internet. We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 8-9) that this at least suggests that the aggregation point may be operated by a third party as a hosted service. We further note that Raza teaches its techniques can be used in a variety of applications, including enterprise and carrier applications. See Raza ¶ 212. Raza teaches an example embodiment wherein the network connects a number of different users in an Outside Plan (OSP) fiber network environment, which further suggests that the central office which hosts the aggregation point is a third party to the managed devices. Id. at ¶¶ 212-216. Appellant also argues the Examiner errs because Raza and Caveney do not teach or suggest “each of the networks operated by a different enterprise,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 9-12. In particular, Appellant argues Caveney teaches, in a background paragraph, that PLM systems are of growing interest because of the size of complexity of data centers and enterprise networks. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Caveney ¶ 3). Appellant argues that Caveney does not teach or suggest the use of a multi- network PLM system operated by different enterprises, or even a multi- network PLM system operated by the same enterprise. Id. at 8-9. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Caveney teaches PLM systems are used due to the growing size and complexity of data centers and enterprise networks. Ans. 9 Appeal 2021-001457 Application 16/141,784 5 (citing Caveney ¶ 3). The Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the disclosed “enterprise networks” to include multiple locations and multiple types of managed devices. Id. at 9-10. We agree with the Examiner that Caveney’s teachings regarding data centers and enterprise networks, when read in combination with the teachings of Raza identified above (see, e.g., Raza ¶¶ 56-57, 212-216), would at least suggest that the managed devices may be housed in a plurality of networks, where each network may be operated by a different enterprise. For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 9, which Appellant argues is patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 9. We also sustain the rejection of claims 4-8, 10, 11, and 14-20, which Appellant does not separately argue, for the same reasons. See id. at 9-10. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4-11, 14-20 103 Raza, Caveney 1, 4-11, 14-20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED