Ex Parte Dilman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 13, 2012

09813415 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 13, 2012)

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.
09/813,415 03/21/2001 Mark Dilman 1-6 2405
46363 7590 08/14/2012
WALL & TONG, LLP/
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
25 James Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte MARK DILMAN and DANNY RAZ
_____________

Appeal 2009-013230
Application 09/813,415
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 6-12, and 14.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

1
Claims 2-5 and 13 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2009-013230
Application 09/813,415

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for monitoring the usage of
node resources by polling the nodes when a threshold or time interval is
exceeded. Spec. 2-3. Claims 1 and 9 are representative of the invention and
are reproduced below:
1. A method for monitoring usage of resources allocated to a
plurality of nodes of a network, comprising the steps of:
assigning a parameter to each of a plurality of nodes of the
network, wherein each parameter is indicative of a rate of
change of usage of said resources of the node;
locally monitoring, at each of the nodes, the rate of change of
the usage of said resources of the node;
reporting to a centralized management station of the network
when the rate of change of the usage of the resources of one of
the nodes exceeds a first threshold;
initiating a poll of resources of nodes of the network by the
centralized management station in response to reporting from
the node or a time interval being exceeded;
determining whether a sum of the currently reported rates of
change of usage of node resources, received in response to the
poll initiated by the management station, exceeds a second
threshold; and
generating an alarm if the sum of the currently reported rates
of change of usage of node resources exceeds the second
threshold, else updating the time interval.

9. A method for managing global resource of a network in order
to reduce the amount of monitoring related traffic, comprising
the steps of:
assigning a local threshold to each of a plurality of node
resources of a respective plurality of nodes of the network;
reporting to a management station of the network when a
value indicative of node resource usage exceed the assigned
local threshold as determined using local monitoring of the
node resource;
initiating a poll, by the management station, of node resource
usage by the nodes of the network in response to a
Appeal 2009-013230
Application 09/813,415

3
determination that a sum of previously reported values
indicative of node resource usage received from reporting nodes
plus an upper bound of node resource usage for non-reporting
nodes exceeds a threshold; and
generating an alarm if the sum of the currently reported
values indicative of node resource usage, received in response
to the poll initiated by the management station exceeds the
threshold.

REFERENCES
Boukobza US 6,122,664 Sep. 19, 2000

Robinson US 6,570,867 B1 May 27, 2003
(filed Apr. 9, 1999)

Maruyama US 6,857,025 B1 Feb. 15, 2005
(filed Apr. 5, 2000)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Boukobza and Robinson. Ans. 3-5.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Maruyama and Robinson. Ans.
5-8.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Boukobza and
Robinson discloses a rate of change of the usage of a resource?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Boukobza and
Robinson discloses a determination that a sum of previously reported values
indicative of node resource usage received from reporting nodes plus an
upper bound of node resource usage for non-reporting nodes exceeds a
threshold?
Appeal 2009-013230
Application 09/813,415

4
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires monitoring the rate of change of the
usage of resources of a node. Independent claims 7, 8, and 10 contain a
similar limitation. Claim 6 is dependent upon independent claim 1; claim 14
is dependent upon claim 7; and claims 11 and 12 are dependent upon claim
8. The Examiner finds that Boukobza’s CPU utilization rate is the same as
the claimed “resource of a node” and that the rate of change of this particular
resource is monitored by Boukobza’s system since Boukobza also teaches
monitoring CPU utilization with respect to time. Ans. 10-11. Appellants
argue that the Examiner’s finding is incorrect since Boukobza only measures
the current value of the CPU utilization and neither Boukobza nor Robinson
teach or suggest “the rate at which the CPU utilization rate is changing.”
App. Br. 17.
We agree with Appellants that Boukobza does not teach that which is
claimed. The Examiner has merely shown that Boukobza has all of the
elements required to determine the rate of change of CPU utilization, but has
not shown that the reference actually monitors or even calculates the rate of
change of CPU utilization with the values that are monitored. Therefore, for
the reasons stated supra, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 7, 8, 10-12, and 14.
Claim 9 recites “initiating a poll, by the management station, of node
resource usage by the nodes of the network in response to a determination
that a sum of previously reported values indicative of node resource usage
received from reporting nodes plus an upper bound of node resource usage
for non-reporting nodes exceeds a threshold.” Appellants initially argue that
Robinson does not disclose the above recited limitation. App. Br. 20-24. In
Appeal 2009-013230
Application 09/813,415

5
response, the Examiner finds that Boukobza teaches “a sum of previously
reported values indicative of node resource usage” since Boukobza teaches
Statistical reports that record activities of the nodes. Ans. 13. However, as
correctly noted by Appellants, the Examiner has neither addressed nor
indicated where either of the references teaches using “an upper bound of
node resource usage for non-reporting nodes.” Reply Br. 10. Consequently,
we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Boukobza and
Robinson discloses a rate of change of the usage of a resource.
The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Boukobza and
Robinson discloses a determination that a sum of previously reported values
indicative of node resource usage received from reporting nodes plus an
upper bound of node resource usage for non-reporting nodes exceeds a
threshold.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 6-12, and 14 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD