Ex Parte Justen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 24, 2014

12170837 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PASCAL JUSTEN, CHRISTOPH STEVENS,
WERNER MARIO LIEKENS,
JAN COPPENS,
CHRISTELE BOUCHAT, and WILLEM JOZEF AMAAT ACKE
____________

Appeal 2012-007079
Application 12/170,837
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JEFFREY S. SMITH and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-007079
Application 12/170,837

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–6, 8, and 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a remote management
system containing a management platform in a customer device where the
bundle is installed, a remote management server in the network, and a
management agent able to expose the service object representation of the
service objects via a remote management protocol to the remote
management server. Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A remote management system for remote management of
a bundle having at least one service object with corresponding
service object representation, said remote management system
comprising:
a management platform in a customer device where said
bundle is installed;
a management agent on the management platform in the
customer device; and
a remote management server, said management agent
being able to expose said service object representation via a
remote management protocol to said remote management
server, and wherein
said remote management system further comprises a
proxy bundle with a generic service object representation
interface configured to populate and export a generic service
Appeal 2012-007079
Application 12/170,837

3
object representation of said at least one service object towards
said management agent on the management platform in the
customer device, said generic service object representation
being a software service module that is independent of the
remote management protocol, wherein said proxy bundle is
configured to monitor and notify parameter value changes of
the at least one service object to said management agent via the
generic service object representation interface.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–2, 4, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in
view of Hayes (US Pub. 2009/0030979 A1; Jan. 29, 2009).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA),
Hayes, in view of Bushmitch (US Pub. 2006/0282863 A1; Dec. 14,
2006).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Hayes
teaches a “proxy bundle is configured to monitor and notify parameter value
changes of the at least one service object to said management agent via the
generic service” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue inter alia that the OSGi bundles of Hayes which the
Examiner equated to a “proxy bundle,” are not performing monitoring as
Appeal 2012-007079
Application 12/170,837

4
required by claim 1 (App. Br. 13). Instead, as can be seen in Figure 2 and as
described in the corresponding text, this monitoring is performed by a
prerequisite computation system 42, which is entirely separate from the
OSGi bundles (App. Br. 13).
We agree with Appellants. We do not agree with Examiner’s finding that
Hayes teaches the OSGi bundles performing the monitoring by analyzing the
prerequisites (Ans. 13), because the prerequisite computation system 42
determines the prerequisites needed for proper operation and sends a list of
needed prerequisites (¶¶ [0035]–[0036]).
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same
reasons the rejections of claims 2–6, 8, and 9. We note that neither AAPA,
Hayes, nor Bushmitch, either alone or in combination, cures the above cited
deficiency.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Hayes teaches a “proxy bundle is
configured to monitor and notify parameter value changes of the at least one
service object to said management agent via the generic service” as recited
in claim 1 (emphasis added).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6, 8, and 9 is reversed.

REVERSED

tj