Ex Parte Singaraju et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2018

13533753 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/533,753 06/26/2012
72689 7590 12/17/2018
SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P.A
1625 RADIO DRIVE, SUITE 100
WOODBURY, MN 55125
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gouri Sankar Singaraju
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.
1014-562US01/JNP-1665 7057
EXAMINER
PATEL, RONAK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2018 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GOURI SINGARAJU and VIVEK SINGH
Appeal2017-002430
Application 13/533,753 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 8, 9, 11-15, 19, 20, and 22-26 (App. Br. 7),
which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 5-7, 10,
16-18, and 21 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "techniques for
configuring and managing network devices." Spec. ,r 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Juniper Networks,
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-002430
Application 13/533,753
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, with a management agent executing on a
network device and from a device management system, a request
message, wherein the request message includes a set of managed
object identifiers and a set of filter operator object identifiers,
wherein the management agent operates in accordance with a
simple network management protocol (SNMP), wherein the
request message comprises one of an SNMP GET, GETNEXT,
or GETBULK command, and wherein each of the set of filter
operator object identifiers specifies one of a mathematical
operator, an equality operator, a bitwise operator, and a logical
operator;
generating at least one filter criterion based on the set of
managed object identifiers and the set of filter operator object
identifiers;
retrieving, with the management agent, a set of managed
object values stored in a management information base (MIB) of
the network device based on the set of managed object
identifiers, wherein each managed object value of the set of
managed object values corresponds to a respective managed
object identifier of the set of managed object identifiers specified
in the request message;
generating, with the management agent, a response
message based on the set of managed object identifiers specified
in the request message and the retrieved set of managed object
values, wherein each managed object value included in the
response message satisfies the at least one filter criterion; and
sending the response message to the device management
system.
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Whitmire (US 6,167,403; issued Dec.
26, 2000), and Vasudev (EP O 831 617 B 1; published May 24, 2006).
2
Appeal2017-002430
Application 13/533,753
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Whitmire, Vasudev, and Agashe (US
2005/0039188 Al; published Feb. 17, 2005).
Claims 11 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Whitmire, Vasudev, Agashe, and Spencer (US 6,253,243
B 1; issued June 26, 2001 ).
II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding the combination of Whitmire and Vasudev teaches or suggests
"receiving, ... from a device management system, a request message [that]
... includes a set of managed object identifiers and a set of filter operator
object identifiers." Claim 1 (emphasis added).
III. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Whitmire in view of V asudev "fails to
disclose or suggest 'receiving, with a management agent executing on a
network device and from a device management system, a request message,
wherein the request message includes a set of managed object identifiers and
a set of filter operator object identifiers' .... " App. Br. 10 (quoting claim
1 ). In particular, according to Appellants, "claim 1 does not merely recite
conventional SNMP operations," but instead, "according to the plain
language of claim 1, 'the request message includes a set of managed object
identifiers and a set of filter operator object identifiers."' Id. at 11.
Appellants contend, "[i]t is well-known that conventional SNMP operations
do not include 'a set of filter operator object identifiers."' Id. For support,
3
Appeal2017-002430
Application 13/533,753
Appellants cite to R. Presuhn et al., Version 2 of the Protocol Operations for
the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), REQUEST FOR
COMMENTS: 3416 (Dec. 2002) at section 4.2. See id. at n.71.
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. We agree with Appellants that the preponderance of evidence on
this record does not support the Examiner's finding that claim 1 would have
been obvious over Whitmire and Vasudev.
The Examiner finds that "Whitmire discloses in fig[.] IA the
Management platform 116 sending [an] SNMP request to the agent" where
"the SNMP request includes MIB objects which accessed by management
agent to retrieve information associated with MIB objects (Managed Object
Identifiers) and one or more OIDs to the objects in the MIB of interest
(Filter identifiers)," and, thus, the SNMP request "includes two different
identifiers." Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, Whitmire also discloses
that "the management agent 1302 receives the request and programs the trap
support value corresponding to the object definition within the MIB then
uses the appropriate trap definitions as determined by the trap support
value." Id.
Although the Examiner finds that Whitmire' s SNMP request
"includes two different identifiers," we cannot find any teaching or
suggestion in the cited sections of "a set of jilter operator object identifiers"
in the SNMP request, as required by claim 1 (emphasis added). In
particular, the Examiner does not provide a clear mapping to the "set of filter
operator object identifiers" included in the retrieved SNMP request along
with the "managed object identifiers," wherein, as claim 1 requires, the
4
Appeal2017-002430
Application 13/533,753
"filter criterion" is then generated based on both the managed object
identifier and the filter operator object identifiers. Id.; see also claim 1.
Although we give a claim term the broadest reasonable interpretation,
the broadest reasonable interpretation must be consistent with the
Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish,
393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, as set forth in the Specification,
"a filter operator object identifier" is "used to encode filter operators." See
Spec. ,r 24. Thus, although the Examiner finds that "one or more OIDs to
the objects in the MIB of interest" are "[]Filter identifiers[]" (Ans. 3), we are
unsure how these "one or more OIDs to the objects in the MIB of interest"
are used to encode filter operators. In fact, we are unsure as to what portion
of Whitmire the Examiner relies upon as teaching or suggesting the "filter
criterion" that is generated based on the managed object identifier and the
filter operator object identifier. 2 Id. Instead, as Appellants contend with
provided support, "[i]t is well-known that conventional SNMP operations do
not include 'a set of filter operator object identifiers."' App. Br. 11 (internal
citation omitted).
Because the Examiner has not fully developed the record to establish
how Whitmire, alone or in combination with Vasudev, teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation, we find speculation would be required to affirm the
Examiner on this record. We decline to engage in speculation. "A rejection
2 See 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2) ("When a reference is complex or shows or
describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular
part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of
each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected
claim specified."
5
Appeal2017-002430
Application 13/533,753
. . . must rest on a factual basis .... " In re Warner, 3 79 F .2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967). "The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the
factual basis for its rejection. It may not ... resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual
basis." Id.
Therefore, on this record, we find a preponderance of the evidence
supports Appellants' contention (App. Br. 10-11) that the Examiner has not
identified a teaching or suggestion of the limitations of claim 1. Because the
Examiner has not satisfied the notice requirement to establish a prima facie
case under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a), the Examiner has not fully developed the
record to establish the unpatentability of claim 1 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 12, 23, and
24, reciting substantially similar limitations (App. Br. 14), and claims 2, 13,
and 25 , depending respectively from claims 1, 12, and 24, over Whitmire in
view of Vasudev. For similar reasons, we also reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, and 26 over Whitmire and
Vasudev, in further view of Agashe; and of claims 11, and 22 over
Whitmire, Vasudev, and Agashe, in further view of Spencer, because the
Examiner has not shown that the additionally cited secondary references
overcome the aforementioned deficiency of the base combination of
Whitmire and Vasudev, as discussed above regarding claim 1.
6
Appeal2017-002430
Application 13/533,753
IV. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 8, 9, 11-15, 19, 20, and
22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), are reversed.
REVERSED
7