Ex Parte Connell et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 19, 201310820295 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BRIAN CONNELL, GREG WILBUR, JOHN AFAGANIS, IAN MacFARLANE and LORI-ANN McGRATH ____________________ Appeal 2010-009132 Application 10/820,295 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009132 Application 10/820,295 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system and method for modeling in a common representation network element commands, events, and data from sources (Abstract). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: modeling network element commands, events and run- time system data into a data model using a first modeling language, the data model comprising first data; translating the first data represented in the first modeling language to second data represented in a second modeling language; storing the second data in the second modeling language in a global data model repository; and automatically generating code to support an external management interface based on the stored second data in the global repository, the external management interface communicating with the stored second data. Appeal 2010-009132 Application 10/820,295 3 References Menzies US 2002/0091809 A1 Jul. 11, 2002 Courtney US 2003/0046370 A1 Mar. 6, 2003 Rejections (1) Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. (2) Claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-16, 18-22, 24, 26, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Menzies. (3) Claims 5-7, 11, 17, 23, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menzies and Courtney. We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph: claim 21 The Examiner rejected claim 21 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention (Final Rej. 2-3). Specifically, the Examiner maintains the recited limitation “the generated system documentation” lacks sufficient antecedent basis (id.). Appeal 2010-009132 Application 10/820,295 4 Appellants presented an amendment to overcome the rejection (Ans. 2, ¶4; 3); however, the Examiner has not entered the Amendment and Appellants present no arguments to overcome the rejection. Accordingly, we pro forma affirm the Examiner’s rejection. Therefore, the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention is affirmed. ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-16, 18-22, 24, 26, 27, and 29 Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Menzies (App. Br. 4-6). Specifically, Appellants argue Menzies does not disclose “modeling network element commands, events and run-time system data into a data model using a first modeling language, the data model comprising first data;” “translating the first data represented in the first modeling language to second data represented in a second modeling language;” and “automatically generating code to support an external management interface based on the stored second data in the global repository, the external management interface communicating with the stored second data” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 4). Appellants argue the recited data model is more than Menzies’ configuration file (App. Br. 4-5). Further, according to Appellants, the arrangement of the present invention, which includes a network element, is not taught or suggested by Menzies (App. Br. 5). Appellants additionally Appeal 2010-009132 Application 10/820,295 5 argue Menzies merely maps management information from one schema to another and does not translate first data to second data as recited (id.). Moreover, Appellants maintain Menzies’ transparent translating the user’s high-level query into a series of simple retrievals and performing the query internally on behalf of the user does not describe “automatically generating code to support an external management interface based on the stored second data in the global repository” (App. Br. 6). Instead, according to Appellants, Menzies discloses translating a user’s high-level query into a series of simpler queries (id.). Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Menzies discloses “modeling network element commands, events and run-time system data into a data model using a first modeling language, the data model comprising first data;” “translating the first data represented in the first modeling language to second data represented in a second modeling language;” and “automatically generating code to support an external management interface based on the stored second data in the global repository, the external management interface communicating with the stored second data” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We agree with the Examiner that using a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of the claims, in light of the Specification, Menzies discloses the invention as recited (Ans. 10-12). We emphasize Appellants have not explicitly defined the disputed terms such as “modeling,” “data model,” and Appeal 2010-009132 Application 10/820,295 6 “translate” and have not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner’s interpretation is in error. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Menzies discloses modeling of commands, events, and run-time data (Ans. 10). We note, Appellants have admitted Menzies discloses translating management information from one scheme (MIB) to another (CIM), i.e., translates a first data to a second data (Br. 5-6; Ans. 11). We further agree with the Examiner that both MIBs and CIM are data represented in modeling language (Ans. 11). In addition, we agree that Menzies describes CIMOM may transparently translate the user’s high-level query into a series of simple retrievals and then perform the query internally on behalf of the user (Menzies, [0060]). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Menzies describes generating code (translating the user’s high-level query into a series of simple retrievals) to support an external management interface based on the second data (id). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Menzies discloses “automatically generating code to support an external management interface based on the stored second data in the global repository, the external management interface communicating with the stored second data” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 13 and 19. Dependent claims 2-4, 8-10, 12, 14-16, 18, 19-22, 24, 26, 27, and 29 were not separately argued and, therefore, fall with their respective independent claims. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding Menzies discloses the invention as recited in claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-16, 18-22, 24, 26, 27, and 29. Appeal 2010-009132 Application 10/820,295 7 Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-16, 18- 22, 24, 26, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Menzies. ISSUE 3 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 5-7, 11, 17, 23, 25, and 28 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Menzies and Courtney because Courtney does cure the deficiencies of Menzies (App. Br. 8). Specifically, Appellants contend Courtney teaches configuring network equipment by simply converting a router’s commands from a native representation into a standard format (App. Br. 8). However, Appellants contend Courtney does not store a data model; model a network element’s commands, events, and run-time system data; or creating commands in a standard format to interface with routers themselves (id.). Thus, according to Appellants, Courtney does not teach a complete data model representation of a network element where the data model is used to automatically generate code for an interface that communicates and interacts with the stored data model. Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Menzies and Courtney teaches or suggests the invention as recited in the dependent claims argued? ANALYSIS We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own (Ans. 13). As set forth above in Issue 1, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Menzies discloses the Appeal 2010-009132 Application 10/820,295 8 disputed limitations. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments that Courtney does not teach or suggest these disputed limitations do not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Menzies and Courtney. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Menzies and Courtney teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 5-7, 11, 17, 23, 25, and 28, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5-7, 11, 17, 23, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Menzies and Courtney. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 8-10, 12-16, 18-22, 24, 26, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Menzies is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7, 11, 17, 23, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Menzies and Courtney 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)(1)(iv) (2011). Appeal 2010-009132 Application 10/820,295 9 AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation