Ex Parte Sabev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2018

14179669 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018)

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.
14/179,669 02/13/2014 GEORGI SABEV 131216US01 7103
62730 7590
SAP SE
3410 HILLVIEW AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
01/25/2018 EXAMINER
FOUD, HICHAM B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2018 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):
APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM
GIPinhouse@sap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGI SABEV and BOJIDAR KADREV
Appeal 2017-008660
Application 14/179,6691
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—15, 17, and 18. Claims 4, 10, and 16
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent claims. The claims relate to
“configur[ing] network devices in a network.” Spec. 17. Claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing
instructions, which when executed by a computer cause the
computer to perform operations comprising:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-008660
Application 14/179,669
sequentially configure network devices by a network
device configurator;
upon determining an unsuccessful configuration of a
network device of the network devices, retry configuring the
network device for a predetermined number of times;
revert configuration of one or more configured network
devices of the network devices when the configuration of the
network device is unsuccessful upon retrying for the
predetermined number of times;
upon determining of a successful configuration of the
network device, sequentially configure remaining network
devices of the network devices until the network devices are
configured; and
upon determining of successful configuration of the
network devices, commit the configuration of the configured
network devices.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6—8, 12—14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noy (US 2003/0051049 Al; Mar. 13,
2003) and Bienn (US 2002/0039353 Al; Apr. 4, 2002). Final Act. 2-A.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Noy, Bienn, and Popeszku (US 2015/0149601 Al;
May 28, 2015). Final Act. 4—5.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Noy, Bienn, and Addepalli (US 9,036,509 Bl; May 19,
2015). Final Act. 5.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER NOY AND BIENN
The Examiner finds Noy discloses sequentially configuring network
devices by a network device configurator. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3, 7—9.
According to the Examiner, Noy’s “central coordinator sends a prepare to
commit notification configuration actions to each of the DCs (network
device[s]) that lie along the path (sequentially).” Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The
2
Appeal 2017-008660
Application 14/179,669
Examiner further finds paragraph 67 of Noy discloses a sequential
configuration. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner acknowledges Noy does
not disclose reverting the configuration of one or more configured network
devices upon an unsuccessful configuration of a network device, but finds
Bienn teaches this feature and concludes the claim would have been obvious
over Noy’s and Bienn’s collective teachings. Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 4.
Appellants argue Noy does not disclose sequentially configuring
network devices. Br. 5—10.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that the combination of Noy and Bienn would have taught or suggested
sequentially configuring network devices?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on the secondary
reference to Bienn is undisputed, as is the cited references’ combinability.
Rather, as noted above, this dispute turns solely on the Examiner’s reliance
on Noy for teaching or suggesting the recited sequential configuration of
network devices. Therefore, we confine our discussion to Noy.
Claim construction is an issue of law that is reviewable de novo.
Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir.
2009). We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Despite Appellants’ assertion to the contrary,
Appellants’ Specification does not define “sequentially configure.” See
Br. 8—10 (citing Spec. 11—13, Fig. 1). The Specification describes that
“///or example, network device 105 A is configured first and upon successful
configuration of the network device 105 A, network device 105B is
3
Appeal 2017-008660
Application 14/179,669
configured and so on.” Spec. 111 (emphasis added). The Specification’s
exemplary description does not so limit the construction of the recited phrase
“sequentially configure,” but it informs our understanding of the recited
phrase.
We, therefore, construe the term “sequentially configure” in
accordance with its plain meaning. The term “sequentially” is defined as
“following in sequence.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
1068 (n. def. 2) (10th ed. 1993). The term “sequence,” in turn, is defined as
an “order of succession.” Id. (n. 3a). The term “configure” is defined as
“[t]o initialize a device so that it operates in a particular way.” The
Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms 217 (7th ed.
2000). Thus, we construe “sequentially configuring” network devices as
initializing each network device to operate a particular way in an order of
succession. In other words, sequentially configuring network devices A and
B is (1) initializing network device A to operate in a particular way followed
by initializing network device B to operate in a particular way; or (2) vice
versa. Such a construction is consistent with Appellants’ use of the phrase
in the claims and the Specification.
Given the construction of “sequentially configure,” the Examiner’s
finding that Noy discloses a sequential configuration of network devices is
problematic. Noy is generally directed to provisioning a service request in a
computer network. Noy, Abstract. Noy’s service request provisioning
includes: (1) determining a service path of network devices between a first
and second network device; (2) determining configuration operations
required of each network device along the service path; and (3) configuring
each network device along the service path. Noy 65—70. Noy discloses
that one method of determining configuration operations is to determine the
4
Appeal 2017-008660
Application 14/179,669
operations of one network device, then sequentially pass the configuration
information to the next device in the path. Id. | 67.
First, we agree with Appellants that Noy’s sequential determination of
configurations operations disclosed in paragraph 67 does not teach or
suggest the recited “sequentially configure” step. Br. 8—9. Rather, once a
service path of network devices is determined, Noy’s “agents/[device
components (DCs)]” that represent the network devices are queried to
determine what configuration operations are required to provision the
service request. Noy 1 66. Because Noy’s configuration operations of one
network device may depend on the configuration operations of its
neighboring devices in the service path, Noy “sequentially determines
configuration operations of each network device, and passes this information
from one agent to the next.” Id. 66—67. Noy’s sequential determination
of each network device’s required configuration operations and passing the
information from one agent to the next, however, does not teach or suggest
sequentially configuring the network devices (i.e., initializing each network
device to operate a particular way in an order of succession). Notably, Noy
discloses that a configuration of network devices occurs after determining
the network devices’ required configuration operations. See id. 170.
Second, we agree with Appellants that Noy’s configuration of
network devices does not teach or suggest a sequential configuration of the
network devices. Br. 10 (citing Noy 177). Noy’s selected coordinator
sends “a prepare_to_commit notification to each of the DCs that lie along
the [service] path.” See Noy 177, Fig. 6. Noy’s prepare_to_commit
notification indicates the configuration actions that each of the DC’s
network devices will be required to perform. Id. ^11. Once all the DCs
affirmatively respond to the prepare_to_commit notification, Noy’s
5
Appeal 2017-008660
Application 14/179,669
“coordinator sends a commit instruction to each of the DCs to perform the
required configuration actions.” Id. Sending a prepare_to_commit
notification or commit instruction to each DC along the service path does
not teach or suggest initializing each DC or DC’s network device to operate
a particular way in an order of succession along the service path. Even to
the extent Noy’s network devices are in sequence along the service path, and
thus receive, process, and reply to the prepare_to_commit notification or
commit instruction at different times, see Ans. 8, that does not teach or
suggest that the network devices are configured in that order. Stated another
way, when Noy sends the prepare_to_commit notification or commit
instruction to all of the network devices, there is no disclosed mechanism
that teaches or suggests configuring one network device followed by another
network device in an order of succession. Id. Rather, Noy teaches or
suggest configuring each network device as it receives the commit
instruction regardless of the state of configuration of every other network
device. Id.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1, (2) independent claims 7 and 13, which recite
commensurate limitations, and (3) dependent claims 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, and
18 for similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our
reversing the Examiner’s rejection of these claims, we need not address
Appellants’ other arguments.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Because the Examiner has not shown that the additionally cited prior
art cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejections of independent
6
Appeal 2017-008660
Application 14/179,669
claims 1, 7, and 13, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of
dependent claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 15, and 17 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—15, 17, and 18
under § 103.
DECISION2
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—15, 17, and 18.
REVERSED
2 We leave to the Examiner to consider whether the limitations of method
claim 7, other than the disputed limitation, are conditional because the
limitations include either “when” or “upon.” See Ex parte Schulhauser, No.
2013-007847, slip op. at 9-10 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding
that in a method claim, a step reciting a condition precedent does not need to
be performed if the condition precedent is not met).
7