Ex Parte Bowler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2019

13844523 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/844,523 03/15/2013
43471 7590
ARRIS Enterprises, LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
03/13/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David B. Bowler
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CS40862 7748
EXAMINER
PREY AL, VOSTER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2019 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):
arris.docketing@arris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID B. BOWLER
and BRIAN M. BASILE 1
Appeal2018-004199
Application 13/844,523
Technology Center 2400
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,
and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE2
This is an appeal from the Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-20.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify ARRIS Enterprises as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed March 12,
2018) and Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Aug. 19, 2017), and the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 12, 2018) and Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final
Act.," mailed Nov. 10, 2016).
Appeal2018-004199
Application 13/844,523
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to automatically detecting and locating faults
occurring in a network, such as a cable network. Spec. ,r,r 29, 31.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are independent. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of
the claims and reproduced below, with italicization added for emphasis:
1. A method of prioritizing estimated fault locations within a network,
comprising the steps of:
in at least one processor communicatively coupled to the
network, monitoring a plurality of different performance parameters
for unacceptable threshold levels via communications with a set of
terminal network elements on the network;
in the at least one processor, separately analyzing each one of
the plurality of different performance parameters identifying
unacceptable threshold levels to identify potential networkfault
locations on the network;
in the at least one processor, generating a plurality of priority
rankings of potential network fault locations, each of the plurality of
priority rankings associated respectively with a most likely estimated
fault location, and each of the plurality of priority rankings being
determined from a different one of the plurality of different
performance parameters identifying unacceptable threshold levels;
and
in the at least one processor, combining information of each of
the plurality of priority rankings to generate an overall priority
ranking of potential network fault locations, wherein the overall
priority ranking is associated with at least a highest priority inspection
point, and wherein generating the overall priority ranking further
includes estimating that one of the potential network fault locations is
a most likely source of a fault on the network, and identifying said
most likely source of a fault on the network as being the highest
priority inspection point.
2
Appeal2018-004199
Application 13/844,523
Serban et al.
Titnmss
Beeco et al.
Nof et al.
Nee
REFERENCES
US 2014/0355454 Al Filed Sept. 4, 2012
US 2004/0153855 Al Pub. Aug. 5, 2004
US 2011/0116387 Al May. 19, 2011
US 2014/0198630 Al Filed Jan. 16, 2014
US 2014/0204954 Al Filed Jan. 22, 2014
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as anticipated by Serban. Non-Final Act. 3-12.
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, and 16 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as obvious over Serban in view ofTitmuss. Non-Final Act. 12-15.
The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, and 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over Serban in view of Titmuss and Beeco. Non-Final Act.
15-18.
The Examiner rejects claim 4 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over Serban in view of Titmuss and Nof. Non-Final Act. 19-20.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 13 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over Serban in view of Nee. Non-Final Act. 20-22.
ANALYSIS
Rejection Under 35 U.S. C. § 102
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, "monitoring a plurality of different
performance parameters for unacceptable threshold levels." Independent claims 15
and 20 recite a similar limitation. The Examiner finds that Serban discloses this
limitation. Non-Final Act. 3--4 (citing Serban ,r 62). Serban discloses a support
vector machine in which:
3
Appeal2018-004199
Application 13/844,523
The fault estimation and localization functions ... learned by
[ support vector machine] are mathematical functions that depend on
inner products ( dot products) between feature vectors from the training
data and the feature vector for the current measurements. Such feature
vectors in the training data are determined at a training stage, and are
usually a small fraction of the training data set. The inner products are
then weighted by coefficients which have also been determined during
training and summed up, and a threshold (e.g., a -0.5 threshold
produces a +/-1 decision) is applied to obtain a decision about the
state of the network. In summary, the decision functions are simple
and fast, and they involve basic mathematical operations.
Serban ,r 62 ( emphasis added).
Appellants argue that the claim limitation requires monitoring for the
existence of "'unacceptable threshold levels,' a plural term which is tied to the
antecedent 'plurality of different performance parameters."' App. Br. 8.
According to Appellants, Serban fails to teach this limitation because "the cited
paragraph of Serban [teaches] applying a single threshold to a sum of products."
Id. (emphasis omitted); see Reply Br. 3. The Examiner responds that Serban
teaches "multiple threshold[ s] are taken into account based on which health of
node is being judged and therefore multiple thresholds or parameters are being
monitored." Ans. 4 (citing Serban ,r,r 66, 70-71, Tables 1-5).
We agree with Appellants that the recited "unacceptable threshold levels"
are tied to the "plurality of different performance parameters," as indicated by the
claim language and Specification. See Spec. ,r,r 61-66 ( discussing unacceptable
levels with respect to DS SNR, DS Power, US Echo, and DS Micro performance
parameters); see also Ans. 3 (Examiner acknowledging the Specification's
indication that the "threshold levels" relate to the aforementioned performance
parameters). We further agree with Appellants that Serban's disclosure that "[t]he
inner products are then weighted ... and summed up, and a threshold (e.g., a---0.5
threshold produces a +/- 1 decision) is applied to obtain a decision about the state
4
Appeal2018-004199
Application 13/844,523
of the network" teaches that a threshold is applied to a sum of products, rather than
"monitoring a plurality of different performance parameters for unacceptable
threshold levels," as required by the claims. In other words, Serban teaches
monitoring one threshold level with respect to a collection of data, not monitoring
threshold levels with respect to each performance parameter that is being
monitored.
Although Serban does teach "samples of the observable parameters taken"
from multiple communication nodes (Serban ,r,r 70-71 ), Serban fails to teach
monitoring multiple parameters for unacceptable thresholds. As Appellants argue,
"Serban instead teaches that its multiple parameters are first weighted and then
summed up to a single value - a sum of products - before applying any threshold."
Reply Br. 4 ( emphasis omitted).
Independent claim 1 further recites "separately analyzing each one of the
plurality of different performance parameters identifying unacceptable threshold
levels to identify potential network fault locations on the network." Independent
claims 15 and 20 recite a similar limitation. The Examiner finds that Serban
discloses this limitation. Non-Final Act. 4 ( citing Serban ,r,r 66, 7 0).
Appellants argue that the performance parameters in Serban are not analyzed
separately as claimed. App. Br. 9-10. Specifically, Appellants argue that,
"[r]ather than being analyzed separately, Serban's parameters are multiplied,
weighted, and summed up before a threshold is applied-in other words, they are
analyzed together, not separately." Id. at 9 (emphasis omitted) (citing Serban
,r 62).
We agree with Appellants that Serban fails to teach this limitation. Serban
discloses taking samples of observable parameters from communication nodes over
several hours (Serban ,r 70) and "communication nodes getting ranked according to
5
Appeal2018-004199
Application 13/844,523
their likelihood of being a fault location" (Serban ,r 66), but does not indicate that
each parameter is separately analyzed to identify potential network fault locations,
as claimed. See Non-Final Act. 4.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of independent claims 1, 15, and 20 and dependent claims 5, 6,
8, 9, 12, 14, 17, and 19, which are not argued separately.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
For the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2--4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 18, which
depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 15, and 20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection 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)(l )(iv).
REVERSED
6