Ex Parte Tan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2013

11498722 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte LAY BEEN TAN, FELIX M. LANDRY, and STEPHEN
ROSENBERGER
_____________

Appeal 2010-008351
Application 11/498,722
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before, DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008351
Application 11/498,722

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and system for storing
configuration information for a new network node. Spec. 4-5. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method for storing, in a network management system
(NMS), configuration information for network nodes in a
network, the method comprising:

installing a node type package in the NMS, the node type
package corresponding to a node type that is not currently
supported by the NMS, the node type package being a
pluggable software module containing the configuration
information;

receiving a signal from a user in the NMS after
installation of the node type package to create a new node as an
instance of the node type;

presenting one or more items of the configuration
information to a user in a configuration form displayed on a
display screen of the system, the presented configuration
information relating to the new node; and

receiving one or more signals from a user for adjusting one or
more of the items to configure the new node.

REFERENCES
Madsen US 2005/0004942 A1 Jan. 6, 2005

Subramanian US 7,124,368 B1 Oct. 17, 2006
Appeal 2010-008351
Application 11/498,722

3
(filed Nov. 7, 2001)

Almeida US 7,146,497 B2 Dec. 5, 2006
(filed Sep. 30, 2003)

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Almeida, Subramanian, and Madsen.
Ans. 3-19.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding it obvious to combine Almeida,
Subramanian, and Madsen?
ANALYSIS
Appellants initially argue that Almeida is neither in the same field of
endeavor nor is it reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved. App.
Br. 8. Appellants’ contention centers around the argument that the claimed
“network node” only includes network devices, such as routers, switches,
etc., and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would only look to
references that disclose nodes that are elements in a network and not nodes
internal to a computer system. App. Br. 7-8. In support of Appellants’
arguments, Appellants indicate that Almeida and the current invention are in
completely different classifications. App. Br. 9. As a result, Appellants
argue that Almeida is non-analogous art. App. Br. 9. We disagree.
First, we note that evidence of classification in different categories by
the PTO “is inherently weak…because considerations in forming a
classification system differ from those relating to a person of ordinary skill
seeking solution for a particular problem.” In re Mlot-Fijalkowski, 676 F.2d
666, 670 n. 5 (CCPA 1982). “Whether a reference in the prior art is
Appeal 2010-008351
Application 11/498,722

4
‘analogous’ is a fact question.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9
(Fed. Cir. 1987)). “A reference is reasonably pertinent if . . ., it is one
which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have
commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Id.
at 659. “If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed
invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports
use of that reference in an obviousness rejection.” Id.
Upon reviewing Appellants’ Specification, we find that Appellants’
field of endeavor pertains to the storage of configuration information for a
network node. Spec. 4. As found by the Examiner (Ans.3), Almeida
teaches a very similar approach, i.e., Almeida “sets and maintains
configuration parameters for the multi-node computer.” Almeida, col. 2, ll.
14-16. While Almeida deals with nodes within a computer and the present
invention deals with nodes within a network, we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 20), that one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Almeida since
both are concerned with configuring nodes. As such, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 20) that Almeida is analogous art.
Appellants additionally argue that it would not have been obvious to
combine Almeida, Subramanian, and Madsen because neither Almeida nor
Madsen would satisfy their intended purposes and the combination would
require complex installations and methods. App. Br. 11-12. We disagree.
First, the Examiner’s position is not based on combining every aspect
of Almeida with Subramanian and Madsen. Instead, the Examiner is simply
relying on Almeida to show that it was known in the art to use a
management module to configure nodes; Subramanian to show that it was
Appeal 2010-008351
Application 11/498,722

5
known in the art to display configuration information to a user; and Madsen
to show that it was known in the art to create a new (not earlier supported)
node type. Ans. 3-4. As such, the combination is nothing more than a
combination of familiar elements according to known methods that yield
predictable results. KSR Int’l Co, v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Thus, the references would satisfy their intended purposes.
Second, a skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is
“a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21.
Appellants have not cited to any evidence to support the assertion that the
combination would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious to combine the
references.
For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-30.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding it obvious to combine Almeida,
Subramanian, and Madsen.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-30 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).
Appeal 2010-008351
Application 11/498,722

6
AFFIRMED

tj