Ex Parte Tapia

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13831082 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/831,082 03/14/2013
132935 7590 08/02/2018
Lee & Hayes, PLLC
601 W. Riverside Avenue
Suite 1400
Spokane, WA 99201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pablo Tapia
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.
TM2-0155US 5646
EXAMINER
LI, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
lhpto@leehayes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PABLO TAPIA
Appeal 2018-002038
Application 13/831,082
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-27, which constitute all the pending claims in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies T-Mobile USA, Inc. as the real party in interest (App.
Br. 3).
Appeal 2018-00203 8
Application 13/831,082
THE INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a "self-organizing
network (SON) with an application programming interface (API) common to
multiple SON tools" (Abstract).
Independent claims 1, 5, and 11, reproduced below, are representative
of the subject matter on appeal:
1. One or more devices of a self-organizing network (SON),
compnsmg:
one or more processors;
a consolidation engine which, when operated by the one
or more processors, receives network information and
determines one or more performance indicators associated with
the network information;
a SON automation engine which, when operated by the
one or more processors, executes SON tools and exposes to the
SON tools an application programming interface (API) for
SONs;
a SON portal which, when operated by the one or more
processors, enables specification of at least one of the SON
tools for execution by the SON automation engine;
the SON tools, each of which, when operated by the one
or more processors, utilizes the API to receive the one or more
performance indicators and performs at least one of:
generating an updated network configuration based
at least in part on the one or more performance indicators
and utilizing the API to provide the updated network
configuration,
2
Appeal 2018-00203 8
Application 13/831,082
invoking, based at least in part on the one or more
performance indicators and via the API, a SON
component to perform an action,
passing, via the API, information associated with
the one or more performance indicators to a SON
component,
sending, via the API, a notification associated with
the one or more performance indicators to a SON
component, and
generating a report based at least in part on the one
or more performance indicators; and
a parameter configurator which, when operated, receives
the updated network configuration via the API and configures
one or more network components.
5. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by an executable self-organizing network
(SON) tool of a plurality of executable SON tools, one or more
performance indicators associated with network information,
the performance indicators received from a consolidation
engine or performance indicator store of a SON via an
application programming interface (API) for SONs that is
utilized by the plurality of SON tools; and
performing, by the SON tool, at least one action based at
least in part on the one or more performance indicators, the at
least one action being one of generating an updated network
configuration, invoking, via the API, a SON component to
perform an action, invoking, via the API, an engineering tool to
perform an action, passing, via the API, information to a SON
component, sending, via the API, a notification, or generating a
report.
3
Appeal 2018-00203 8
Application 13/831,082
11. One or more computer storage devices having stored
thereon a plurality of processor-executable modules associated
with a self-organizing network (SON), the plurality of
processor-executable modules comprising:
a consolidation engine which, when operated, receives
network information and determines one or more performance
indicators associated with the network information; and
a plurality of SON tools each of which, when operated,
utilizes an application programming interface (API) for SONs
that is shared by the SON tools to receive the one or more
performance indicators from the consolidation engine or from a
performance indicator store and perform at least one action
based at least in part on the one or more performance indicators,
the at least one action being one of generating an updated
network configuration, invoking, via the API, a SON
component to perform an action, invoking, via the API, an
engineering tool to perform an action, passing, via the API,
information to a SON component, sending, via the API, a
notification, or generating a report.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
Lovy
Mishra
Taylor
Cleary
US 2009/0216881 Al
US 2010/0325267 Al
US 2011/0265011 Al
US 2012/0059923 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Aug. 27, 2009
Dec. 23, 2010
Oct. 27, 2011
Mar. 8, 2012
Claims 1-13 and 16-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Mishra, in view of Cleary and Lovy. Final Act. 3.
4
Appeal 2018-00203 8
Application 13/831,082
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mishra, in view of Cleary, Lovy, and Taylor. Final Act.
19.
ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Mishra, Cleary, and Lovy teaches or suggests the limitation of:
1. "a SON portal which ... enables specification of at least one of the SON
tools," as recited in claim 1;
2. "receiving, by an executable self-organizing network (SON) tool of a
plurality of executable SON tools, one or more performance indicators,"
as recited in claim 5; and
3. "a plurality of SON tools" which "perform at least one action based at
least in part on the one or more performance indicators," as recited in
claim 11.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant argues that "Lovy indicates that its portal can be used to
display visualizations of a network, and to view cases related to current and
historical network problems" and "[ d]isplaying visualizations and case
information does not indicate that the portal allows specification of [a] tool
for execution by a different element" (App. Br. 9--10 (citing Lovy ,r,r 62, 85,
189--191)). Appellant contends "the Examiner's response appears to read in
limitations from the specification that are not present in the claims" (Reply
Br. 4).
5
Appeal 2018-00203 8
Application 13/831,082
We agree. The Examiner finds that Appellant's disclosure "provides
a broad definition of [a] 'SON portal' as 'a SON portal ... to display the
visualizations"' (Ans. 4. ( citing Spec. ,r 25)). However, the Examiner fails
to consider the remainder of the cited sentence of the disclosure, which
states that the SON portal further "enable[ s] developer specification of SON
tools 206" (Spec. ,r 25), a feature clearly separate from the display feature,
and recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2--4,
which depend therefrom.
Claim 5
Appellant argues that Mishra "indicates that each device on a network
would report its metrics directly to the SON server optimization system
(1000), not pass it through a consolidation engine or performance indicator
store" (App. Br. 17 (citing Mishra ,r 171)) and that Cleary's API "allows
other devices to 'invoke' SON functions" (App. Br. 17 (citing Cleary ,r 24)).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that "the SON Optimization module comprises an event
detection module, a measurement module and a logging module" and "in
conjunction with a network manager, which also implements an SON
optimization system that utilizes SON policies" (Ans. 18 ( citing Mishra
,r,r 183, 182)). In contradiction to Appellant's argument regarding Mishra
sending metrics directly to the SON server optimization system, the
Examiner further finds, and we agree, that "[d]ata exchange between the UE
1220 and the SON server (not shown) may, for example, take place through
6
Appeal 2018-00203 8
Application 13/831,082
a network manager, such as network manager 1120 shown in FIG. 11" (Ans.
18 ( quoting Mishra ,r 182) ). Thus, the claimed "consolidation engine"
encompasses Mishra's network manager and the claimed "SON tools"
encompass Mishra's event detection, measurement, and logging modules.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combination of Mishra's
and Cleary's teachings would "improve network scalability and design
implementation choices" (Final Act. 10 ( citing Cleary ,r 8) ). Appellant's
argument that Cleary' s API functions allows other devices to invoke SON
functions ignores Cleary's express teaching that "the SON function 722
invoked by [an agent 710] are implemented in the same network element"
which can be the "domain manager" (Cleary ,r 21 ). Therefore, the
combination of Mishra and Cleary teaches or suggests SON tools receiving
performance indicators from a consolidation engine serving as a central
location, in which the performance indicators and subsequent SON actions
are passed via an API, because use of an API would improve network
scalability and design implementation choices.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 5, as well as dependent claims 6-10 not separately argued. See App.
Br. 18.
Claim 11
Appellant principally argues that
Mishra's SON policies indicate how a network element should
detect, measure, and log events specified by the policies. The
Office Action has not explained how detection, measurement,
or logging of network events according to a SON policy
correspond to any of the specific SON tool functions recited in
claim 11
7
Appeal 2018-00203 8
Application 13/831,082
(App. Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 12-13).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Mishra teaches
the SON policy can specify standardized events to be reported
by a UE 1220, techniques for measuring and/or logging such
events, techniques for reporting logged events to a network
manager, or the like. In one aspect, by standardizing the events
measured by a UE 1220 and the manner in which such events
are logged and reported back to a network manager, a network
manager can facilitate autonomous management of the network
(Ans. 23 (quoting Mishra ,r 184)). Thus, the actions taught or suggested by
the combination of Mishra and Cleary include the claimed "generating a
report" (via events logged and reported back by Mishra) and the claimed
"generating an updated network configuration" ( through facilitating
autonomous management of the network by Mishra), as well as the claimed
actions involving an API (when Mishra's structure and functions are
combined with Cleary's use of an API).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 11, as well as dependent claims 12-27 not separately argued. See
App. Br. 20-21.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner:
1. erred in finding the combination of Mishra, Cleary, and Lovy teaches or
suggests the limitation of: "a SON portal which ... enables specification
of at least one of the SON tools," as recited in claim 1;
2. did not err in finding the combination of Mishra, Cleary, and Lovy
teaches or suggests the limitation of: "receiving, by an executable self-
8
Appeal 2018-00203 8
Application 13/831,082
organizing network (SON) tool of a plurality of executable SON tools,
one or more performance indicators," as recited in claim 5; and
3. did not err in finding the combination of Mishra, Cleary, and Lovy
teaches or suggests the limitation of: "a plurality of SON tools" which
"perform at least one action based at least in part on the one or more
performance indicators," as recited in claim 11.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9