EXHIBIT 16

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 16
May-02-2007 11 :01am From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ +17325309808 T-093 P.001 F-236 

Applicant(s}: 

Serial No.: 

Examiner: 

Filed: 

Confirmation #: 

Title: 

IN THE UNITED STATES 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

PATENT APPLICATION 

Mark Oilman et al. 

09/813,415 

Bilgrami, Asghar H. 

March 21, 2001 

2405 

Group Art Unit: 2143 

Case: 1-6 

RECEIVED 

CENTfW. FAX CENTER 

MAY O 2 2007 

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR EFFICIENT REACTIVE 

MONITORING 

CERTJFlCATE OF MAILING OR TRANSMISSION 

MAIL STOP Amendment 

Commissioner for Patents 

P.O. Box 1450 

I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited 

with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage 

for first dass mail in an en11elope addressed to; Commissioner 

for Patents, P.O. Sox 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, or 

being facsimile transmitted to the USPTO, on the date 

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 in:eated below. c ~ 

u-;,-02 

Date 

SIR: 

RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §1.111 

In response to the Office Action mailed February 8, 2007, please consider the 

ab(?ve-identified patent application as follows. 

In the event that an extension of time is required for this response to be 

considered timely, and a petition therefor does not otherwise accompany this response, 

any necessary extension of time is hereby petitioned for. 

The Commissioner is authorized to charge any fees due, including extension of 

time and excess claim fees, to counsel's Deposit Account No. 20-0782/LCNT/Dilman 1. 

PAGE 1f20 1 RCVD AT 5121200712:11 :57 PM [Eastern Da~ighl Time] 1SVR:USPTO-EFXRF-3/10 1 DNIS:2738300 ~ CSID:+17325309808 ~ DURATION (mm-ss):06· 10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 2 of 16
May-02-2007 11:03am From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813A15 

Page 7 of 20 

+17325309808 

REMARKS 

T-093 P.007/020 F-236 

This response is intended as a full and complete response to the Office Action 

• 

mailed February 8, 2007. In the Office Action, the Examiner notes that cfaims 1 and 6-

14 are pending and rejected. By this response, Applicants have amended claims 1, 9, 

and 10. Claim 13 is hereby cancelled. No new matter has been added. 

In view of both the foregoing amendments and the following remarks, Applicants 

submit that none of the claims now pending in the application are obvious under the 

provisions of 35 U.S.C. §103. Thus, Applicants believe that all of the claims are now in 

allowable form. 

It is to be understood that Applicants, by amending the claims, do not acquiesce 

to the Examiner's characterizations of the art of record or to Applicants' subject matter 

recited in the pending claims. Further, Applicants are not acquiescing to the Examiner's 

statements as to the applicability of the art of record to the pending claims by filing the 

instant response including amendments. 

OBJECTIONS 

Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: "Since 

the terms node and recourse are not clearly defined in the specification therefore one in 

the ordinary skill in the art cannot determine in light of the specification which term 

depends on the other or whether that are the same entity." Applicants respectfully 

disagree. 

Applicants respectfully submit that the terms .. node" and resource" are clear from 

Applicants' specification and drawings. Applicants' entire specification, and associated 

drawings, with the exception of the Summary of Invention section of Applicants' 

specification clearly distinguish between nodes (i.e., network elements) and resources 

of the nodes, where the usage of such resources is monitored at each of the nodes. 

Applicants have herein amended portions of Summary of Invention section of 

Applicants' specification to ensure consistency between use of the terms "node" and 

"resource" therein and use of the terms "node" and "resource" in the remainder of 

Applicants' specification and the associated drawings. 

546002-1 

PAGE 7120 1 RCVD AT 512/200712:11 :57 PM !Eastern Da~ig~t Time] 1 SVR:USPTO-EFXRF·3110 t DNIS:2738300 1 CSID:+17325309808 1 DURATION (mm-ss):06· 10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 3 of 16
May-02-2007 11 :03am From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 8 of 20 

+17325309808 T-093 P.008/020 F-236 

Applicants respectfully submit that support for such amendments may clearly be 

found in Applicants' specification and drawings, as originally filed. 

For example, Appllcants' specification, with respect to Figure 1, states that "Fig. 1 

is a block diagram illustrating a network of interconnected nodes, and a network 

management station arranged to monitor and control resource usage at the nodes .... " 

Similarly, for example, Applicants' specification with respect to Figure 2, states that "Fig. 

2 is a flow diagram of the resource utilization monitoring process perfonned at the 

nodes in Fig. 1, in a first embodiment of the invention which monitors the value of the 

resources .... n In other words, nodes and resources are clearly defined. 

Furthermore, the Detailed Description of Applicants' specification properly uses 

the terms anode" and "resource". For example, with respect to the description of Figure 

1, Applicants' specification states that "Fig. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a network 

100 of interconnected nodes 130-132 and 150-152, each of which has an assigned 

budget value. In a real embodiment, nodes 130-132 and 150-152 may be switches in an 

ATM network, some of which are connected to users such as user 101 through other 

networks, such as network 140 that contain other nodes, such as node 140. Other 

nodes, such as node 153 may be routers, bridges, or other similar network elements. 

Nodes can also be connected to a server 120 within a network 122 via a firewall 121. A 

network management station 160, connected to network 100 via node 132, is arranged 

to monitor and control resource usage at the other network nodes in accordance with 

principles of the present Invention." (Specification, Pg. 7, Line 24 - Pg. 8, Line 1 ). In 

other words, nodes and resources are clearly defined. 

Thus, for at least these reasons, and at least because of the portions of 

Applicants' specification reproduced herein, Applicants respectfully submit that the 

terms "node" and resourcen are clear from Applicants' originally-filed specification and 

drawings. Furthermore, Applicants have herein amended the Summary of the Invention 

section of Applicants' specification to ensure consistency with the other portions of 

Applicants' specification, as well as the associated drawings. 

Therefore, the objections should be withdrawn. 

546002-1 

PAGE 8120 * RCVD AT 512/200712:11 :57 PM !Eastern Daylight Time)3 SVR:USPTO-EFXRF-3/10 * DNIS:2738300 * CSID:+17325309808' DURATION (mm-ss):06-10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 4 of 16
May-02-2007 11:03am From-Uoser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ +17325309808 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 9 of 20 

35 u.s.c. §112 

Claims 1. 7. 8. 9. 10 

REJECTIONS 

T-093 P.009/020 F-236 

Claims 1. 7, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, ~1, as failing to 

comply with the enablement requirement. Specifically, the Examiner finds that "[t]he 

specification does not provide a clear description of a resource and a node. Additionally, 

the specification does not distinguish between nodes and resources. Since the terms 

node and resource are not clearly defined in the specification therefore one in the 

ordinary skill in the art cannot determine in light of the specification which term depends 

on the other or whether that are the same entity." Furthermore, with respect to claim 9, 

the Examiner further finds that "[t]he specification does not define the budget and the 

budget value." The Examiner further finds that "[t]he specification does not disclose 

how a global resource can be partitioned into a plurality of node resources." Applicants 

respectfully disagree. 

With respect to the terms "node" and "resource", Applicants respectfully submit 

that the specification clearly distinguishes between nodes and resources for at least the 

reasons described hereinabove with respect to claims objections related to the terms 

"node" and "resource". As such, Applicants submit that claims 1, 7, 8, 9, and 1 o each 

satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, ,T1, and are patentable thereunder. 

With respect to the terms "budget" and "budget value", although Applicants 

believe that the terms "budget" and "budget value" are clearly defined in the Applicants' 

specification and associated drawings, Applicants have herein amended claim 9 to 

indicate that the term "budget" is a value threshold used for determining when the 

associated node should report to the management station, and the term "budget value" 

is a value indicative of the usage, or rate of change of usage, of a resource at the node 

to which that budget value is assigned. As such, Applicants submit that claim 9 satisfies 

the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, ,r1, and is patentable thereunder. 

With respect to the limitation of partitioning a global resource into a plurality of 

node resources, although Applicants believe that the specification provides sufficient 

support for such limitation, Applicants have herein amended claims 9 and 1 O to remove 

PAGE 9120 • RCVD AT 512/200712:11 :57 PM [Eastern Daylight Time]• SVR:USPTO.ffXRF-3/10 t DNIS:2738300 t CSID:+17325309808 t DURATION imm-ss):06-10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 5 of 16
May-02-2007 11:04am From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 10 of 20 

+17325309808 T-093 P.010/020 F-236 

this limitation. As such, Applicants submit that claims 9 and 10 satisfy the requirements 

of 35 U.S.C. §112, 1f1, and are patentable thereunder. 

Therefore, the rejections should be withdrawn. 

35 u.s.c. §103 

The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 6-14 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being 

unpatentable over Mandal (U.S. Patent 6,170,009, hereinafter "Mandal'') and Robinson 

et al. (U.S. Patent 6,570,867, hereinafter "Robinson"). Applicants respectfully traverse 

the rejection. 

Claims 1. 7 and 8 

Claims 1 and 7 recite the features of monitoring the rate of change of usage of 

resources at one or more nodes and reporting to a centralized management station of 

the network when the rate of change of the usage of the resources of one of the nodes 

exceeds a threshold. Mandal and Robinson, however, alone or in combination, fail to 

teach or suggest those features. 

In general, Manda! teaches control of devices on a network using policies. 

Specifically, Mandal discloses a system that allows an operator to specify a policy for 

controlling a group of devices. (Mandal, Abstract). In general, Robinson discloses a 

network management framework for monitoring network-level concepts of routes and 

paths. As disclosed in Robinson, a route and path management system Includes a data 

collector for collecting data from Individual network elements. a management server for 

processing the collected data into manageable route and path objects, and a graphical 

user interface for allowing a user to manage and monitor routes and paths. (Robinson, 

Abstract). 

Manda! and Robinson, however, alone or in combination. for at least the reasons 

described in Applicants' response of December 22, 2006 to the Office Action dated 

September 26, 2006, fail to teach of suggest at least the features of monitoring the rate 

of change of usage of resources at one or more nodes and reporting to a centralized 

546002-1 

PAGE 10/20 * RCYD AT 5/21200712:11:57 PM ~astern Da~ight Time] 1SVR:USPTO.fFXRF•J/10 1 DNlS:2738300 1 CSID:+17325309808 i DURATION (mm-ss):06,10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 6 of 16
May-02-2007 11 :04am From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 11 of 20 

+17325309808 T-093 P.011/020 F-236 

management station of the network when the rate of change of the usage of the 

resources of one of the nodes exceeds a threshold. 

Furthermore, in the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that "Mandal describes a 

policy in which a network management system should allow no more than 30% of total 

bandwidth for video. Therefore in order to implement such policy it has to monitor at 

periodic times (col. 6, lines 1-27) the rate of change of a parameter against a certain 

threshold, which is 30% in this example (please read cot 3, lines 45-67)." (Office Action, 

Pg. 9). Applicants respectfully disagree. 

Applicants respectfully maintain that Manda! does not teach a ~ of change. 

Rather, Manda I teaches a policy in which a value of the percentage of bandwidth used 

for video, measured at a specific time, is compared against the 30% threshold. For 

example, at time k the percentage of bandwidth which is used for video is 28%, which 

is less than the threshold of 30%. This simply does not teach or suggest a rate at which 

the percentage of bandwidth used for video changes. For example, a value of 28% at 

a specific point in time does not teach or suggest that the percentage of bandwidth used 

for video has changed at a rate of, for example, 3% per hour. 

In other words, as taught in Mandal, the value is an instantaneous value, 

measured at a fixed point in time, that is compared against the threshold value. An 

instantaneous value measured at a fixed point In time, as taught in Manda!, is simply not 

a rate of change, as claimed in Appllcants' claim 1. A rate is clearly measured using a 

time Interval, or some other interval by which rate may be measured. There is no time 

interval in Mandal. Mandal is devoid of any teaching or suggestion of monitoring any 

rate. As such, since Manda! fails to teach or suggest a rate of change, Manda! must 

also fail to teach or suggest a rate of change of usage of a resource, as claimed in 

Applicants' claim 1. 

Thus, since Manda! and Robinson each fail to teach or suggest a rate of change 

of the usage of resources, any permisslble combination of Mandal and Robinson must 

also fall to teach or suggest a rate of change of the usage of resources. Thus, Mandal 

and Robinson, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest Applicants' claim 1, as a 

whole. 

546002-1 

PAGE 11/20 * RCVD AT 5121200712:11:57 PM ~astern Daylight Time)• SVR:USPTO•EFXRF-3/10 * DNIS:2738300 • CSID:+17325309808 t DURATION (mm,ss):06·10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 7 of 16
May-02-2007 11:04am From-Mossr, Pattsrson & Shsridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 12 of20 

+17325309808 T-093 P.012/020 F-236 

Therefore, independent claim 1 is patentable over Manda! and Robinson and, 

thus, fully satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103 and is patentable thereunder. 

Similarly, independent claims 7 and 8 recite features similar to the features of claim 1. 

Namely, independent claims 7 and 8 also include the feature of a rate of change of the 

usage of resources. As such, for at least the same reasons discussed herein .with 

respect to claim 1, independent claims 7 and 8 also are patentable over Manda! and 

Robinson and, thus, fully satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103 and are patentable 

thereunder. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request that the rejection be withdrawn. 

Claim 9 

As described herein, Mandal teaches control of devices on a network using 

policies where each policy is automatically translated into lower-level device-specific 

commands which are sent to the devices across the network, and Robinson teaches a 

route and path management system Including a data collector for collecting data from 

individual network elements, a management server for processing the collected data 

into manageable route and path objects, and a graphical user interface for allowing a 

user to manage and monitor routes and paths. 

Mandal and Robinson, however, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest 

Applicants' claim 9, as a whole. Namely, Mandal and Robinson, alone or In combination, 

fail to teach or suggest at least the limitation of "initiating a poll, by the management 

station, of node resource usage by the nodes of the network in response to a 

determination that a sum of previously reported values indicative of node resource 

usage received from reporting nodes plus an upper bound of 11ode resource usage for 

non-reporting nodes exceeds a threshold," as claimed In Applicants' claim 9. 

With respect to polling, Mandal merely states that network devices may be polled 

periodically. More specifically, Manda! states that a topology service "maintains status 

information for the active devices coupled to the network by either periodically pomng 

devices on network 108, or by merely listening to traffic on network 108 to determine 

which devices are responding to commands .... " (Mandal, Col. 6, Lines 9-13). Manda!, 

however, is devoid of any teaching or suggestion of Initiating a poll of network nodes in 

respomm to any determination that sum of previously reported values indicative of node 

546002-1 

PAGE 12/20 • RCVD AT 5/2/200712:11 :57 PM ~astern Da~ight Timer SVR:USPTO-EFXRF-3/W DNIS:2738300 R CSID:+17325309808 R DURATION (mm•ss):06·10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 8 of 16
Uay-02-2007 11:05am Frcm-UcsBr, PattBrscn & ShBridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 13 of 20 

+1732530Q808 T-093 P.013/020 F-236 

resource usage received from reporting nodes plus an upper bound of node resource 

usage for non-reporting nodes exceeds a threshold, as claimed in Applicants' claim 9. 

Furthermore, Robinson fails to bridge the substantial gap between Mandal and 

Applicants' claim 9. 

In general, Robinson describes the use of polling to perform path discovery, and 

polling network objects in an object queue to obtain performance data. Specifically, 

Robinson describes "polling each network object listed in the object queue 68 (ne)IV and 

old) through the data collector 21 to obtain pert'ormance data for each of the objects 

listed. The object performance logic 69 then forwards the polled responses obtained to 

the notification channel for notification to the GUI 23." (Robinson, Col. 12, Lines 20-23). 

Robinson, however, fails to teach or suggest at least the limitation of "initiating a poll, by 

the management station, of node resource usage by the nodes of the network in 

response to a determination that a sum of previously reported values indicative of node 

resource usage received from reporting nodes plus an upper bound of node resource 

usage for non-reporting nodes exceeds a threshold," as claimed In Applicants' claim 9. 

In the Office Action, the Examiner cites specific portions of Robinson (Col. 2, 

Lines 60-67; Col. 3, Lines 1-33; Col. 5, Lines 3w12; Col. 12, Lines 26-44; and Col. 13, 

Lines 46-58), asserting that the cited portions of Robinson teach Applicants' limitation of 

"Initiating a poll, by the management station, of node resource usage by the nodes of 

the network In response to a determination that a sum of previously reported budget 

values received from reporting nodes plus an upper bound of budget values for nonreporting nodes exceeds a threshold," as claimed in Applicants' claim 9. The cited 

portions of Robinson, however, fail to teach or suggest this limitation, or Applicants' 

amended llmltatlon of "Initiating a poll, by the management station, of node resource 

usage by the nodes of the network in response to a determination that a sum of 

previously reported values indicative of node resource usage received from reporting 

nodes plus an upper bound of node resource usage for non-reporting nodes exceeds a 

threshold," as claimed in Applicants' claim 9. 

Rather, the cited portions of Robinson merely disclose various other teachings. 

With respect to the portions of Robinson cited by the Examiner, Col. 2, Lines 60-67 of 

Robinson merely Includes general statements indicating that routes and paths in a 

546002-1 

PAGE 13/20 s RCYD AT 5/21200712:11:57 PM ~astern Da~ight Time]* SVR:USPTO·EFXRF.JJ10 • DNIS:2738300 • CSID:+17325309808 • DURATION (mm-ss):06·10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 9 of 16
May-02-2007 11 :05am From-MosBr, PattBrson & ShBridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 14 of20 

+17325309808 T-093 P.014/020 F-236 

network provide managers with capabilities including troubleshooting, performance 

monitoring service level planning, and path provisioning. Similarly, for example, Col. 3, 

Lines 1-33 of Robinson merely includes general statements describing the advantages 

of using a data collector for collecting routing information from individual network 

devices versus device level management applications. Furthermore, Col. 3, Lines 1-33 

of Robinson describes functions supported by the system of Robinson, such as realtime monitoring and reporting of device-level perfonnance, storing and providing route 

history and path-level performance history, and raising and clearing of QoS alarms. 

Moreover, Col. 5, Lines 3-12 of Robinson merely Includes general statements regarding 

the configuration of an IP network. 

In other words, these portions of Robinson described above are completely 

devoid of any teaching or suggestion of initiating a poll of node resource usage by the 

nodes of the network in response to a detennination that a sum of previously reported 

values indicative of node resource usage received from reporting nodes plus an upper 

bound of node resource usage for non:-reporting nodes exceeds a threshold, as claimed 

in Applicants' claim 9. These portions of Robinson are devoid of any teaching or 

suggestion of any sums, previously reported values. values indicative of node resource 

usage, upper bounds, reporting and non-reporting nodes, or any of the other features of 

Applicants' llmitatlon. 

Furthermore, with respect to other portions of Robinson cited by the Examiner, 

Col. 12, Lines 26-44 and Col. 13, Lines 46-58, Robinson merely describes simple 

calculatlons and comparisons that are completely devoid of any teaching or suggestion 

of previously reported values lndlcatlve of node resource usage received from reporting 

nodes. an upper bound of node resource usage for non-reporting nodes, a sum of 

previously reported values indicative of node resource usage received from reporting 

nodes and an upper bound of node resource usage for non-reporting nodes, or a 

determination that such a sum exceeds a threshold. 

More specifically, with respect to Col. 12, Lines 26-44, Robinson states that 

objects polled are compared to threshold data contained in a path queue and 

performance of each path listed therein is calculated. The comparison of polled objects 

to threshold data and calculation of path performance, as taugl'\t in Robinson, simply 

PAGE 14120 i RCVD AT 5/21200712:11 :57 PM ~astern D~ight TimeJ • SVR:USPTO·EFXRF•3110 t DNlS:2738300 1 CSl0:+17325309808 1 DURA TlON (mm•ss):06·10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 10 of 16
May-02-2007 11 :05am From·Uoser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 15 of 20 

+17925309808 T-093 P.015/020 F-236 

does not teach or suggest the fill.!!l claimed in Applicants' claim 9. Furthermore, in the 

cited section of Robinson, Robinson describes forwarding of paths for which 

performance was calculated to route performance logic, which compares the obtained 

paths with old identification data In the route queue. The CC)mparison of paths with 

information in a path queue, as taught in Robinson, simply does not teach or suggest 

the sum claimed in Applicants' claim 9. As such, the cited portion of Robinson clearly 

fails to teach or suggest at least the limitation of "initiating a poll, by the management 

station, of node resource usage by the nodes of the network in response to a 

determination that a sum of previously reported values Indicative of node resource 

usage received from reporting nodes plus an upper bound of node resource usage for 

non-reporting nodes exceeds a threshold," as claimed in Applicants' claim 9. 

Furthermore, with respect to Col. 13, Lines 46-58, Robinson states that 

performance of a specified route, and each of the associated paths and objects, is 

measured against appropriate performance thresholds located in the threshold crossing 

logic. The performance of a mute, path, or object, as taught in Robinson, simply does 

not teach or suggest the sum claimed in Applicants' claim 9. Furthermore, in the cited 

section of Robinson, Robinson further states that once threshold calculations are 

completed, the historlcal performance monitoring process is repeated to obtain new 

performance values which are permanently stored and checked against threshold 

levels. In other words, Robinson merely includes general statements about threshold 

calculations, historical performance monitoring, and comparison of performance values 

against thresholds. Such general statements of Robinson simply do not teach or 

suggest the .§YID claimed in Applicants' claim 9. As such, the cited portion of Robinson 

clearly fails to teach or suggest at least the limitation of "initiating a poll, by the 

management station, of node resource usage by the nodes of the network in response 

to a determination that a sum of previously reported values indicative of node resource 

usage received from reporting nodes plus an upper bound of node resource usage for 

non-reporting nodes exceeds a threshold," as claimed in Applicants' claim 9. 

Thus, since Manda! and Robinson each fail to teach or suggest "initiating a poll, 

by the management station, of node resource usage by the nodes of the network in 

response to a determination that a sum of previously reported values indicative of node 

546002-1 

PAGE 15120 • RCVD AT 5/21200712:11 :57 PM ~astern Daylight Time] 1SVR:USPTO·EFXRF-3110 1DNIS:2738300 1 CSID:+17325309808' DURATION (mm-ss):06·10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 11 of 16
May-02-2007 11 :06am From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 16 of 20 

+17325309808 T-093 P.016/020 F-236 

resource usage received from reporting nodes plus an upper bound of node resource 

usage for non-reporting nodes exceeds a threshold," any permissible combination of 

Manda! and Robinson must also fail to teach or suggest '"initiating a poll, by the 

management station, of node resource usage by the nodes of the network in response 

to a determination that a sum of previously reported values Indicative of node resource 

usage received from reporting nodes plus an upper bound of node resource usage for 

non-reporting nodes exceeds a threshold." Thus, Manda! and Robinson, alone or in 

combination, fail to teach or suggest Applicants' claim 9, as a whole. 

As such, independent claim 9 fully satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103 

and is patentable over Mandal and Robinson. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully 

request that the rejection be withdrawn. 

Claim 10 

As described herein, Mandal teaches control of devices on a network using 

policies where each policy is automatically translated Into lower-level device-specific 

commands which are sent to the devices across the network, and Robinson teaches a 

route and path management system including a data collector for collecting data from 

individual network elements, a management server for processing the collected data 

Into manageable route and path objects, and a graphical user Interface for allowing a 

user to manage and monitor routes and paths. 

Mandal and Robinson, however, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest 

Applicants' claim 10, as a whole. Namely, as described herein with respect to claims 1 

and 7, Mandal and Robinson, alone or in combination, fail teach or suggest a rate of 

usage of a node resource, as claimed in Applicants' claim 10. As such, for at least this 

reason, Applicants' claim 10 is patentable over Mandal and Robinson under 35 U.S.C. 

§103. 

Furthennare, In the Office Action, the Examiner appears to have failed to provide 

any argument with respect to Applicants' limitation of "wherein said rate of change of 

usage of said node resource is determined using a variable time interval." As such, 

Applicants respectfully submit that Mandal and Robinson, alone or in combination, also 

546002-1 

PAGE 16120' RCVD AT 5/2/200712:11:57 PM ~astern Da~ight Time] g SVR:USPTO·EFXRF-3110 • DNIS:2738300 g CSI0:+17325309808' DURATION (mrn•ss):06·10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 12 of 16
May-02-2007 11 :06am From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813.415 

Page 17 of 20 

+17325309808 T-093 P.017/020 F-236 

fail to teach or suggest a rate of change of usage of a node resource that is determined 

using a variable time interval, as claimed in Applicants' claim 10. 

Moreover, Mandal and Robinson, alone or in combination, and for at least the 

reasons stated hereinabove, fail to teach or suggest at least the limitation of "reporting 

to a management station of the network when a rate of change of usage of said node 

resource exceeds the local threshold as determined using local monitoring of the node 

resource, wherein said rate of change of usage of said node resource is determined 

using a variable time Interval comprising a difference between a current time and a time 

at which the node was last polled by the management station," as claimed in Applicants' 

claim 10. 

Mandal is devoid of any teaching or suggestion of reporting by a network node to 

a management system. Rather, Mandal describes a management system that performs 

periodic polling of network devices, and which may listen to traffic on the network in 

order to determine which devices are responding to commands. (Manda!, Col. 6, Lines 

9-13). Furthermore, even if Manda! did teach reporting by a network node to a 

management system, Mandal still fails to teach or suggest any rate that is determined 

using a variable time Interval, much less that a rate of usage of a resource is 

determined using a variable time interval or that the time interval comprises a difference 

' 

between a current time and a time at which the node was last polled by the 

management station, as claimed in Applicants' claim 10. 

Furthermore, with respect to reporting by a network node to a management 

system, Robinson merely states that traps may be generated by network elements and 

reported to the management system. Specifically, Robinson states that ''[t]raps 

generated by network elements 24 are received into the management server 22 through 

a trap gatherer 61 which is preferably implemented in the data collector 21. The trap 

gatherer 61 forwards each trap received to a trap handler 62 which is internal to the 

management server 22." (Robinson, Col. 9, Lines 60-64). Robinson, however, is devoid 

of any teaching or suggestion of any details of what triggers the traps to be sent, other 

than a general statement that traps are generated for significant events that occur 

between polling intervals. 

646002-1 

PAGE 17/20 • RCYD AT 5121200712:11 :57 PM ~astern Da~ight TuneJ * SVR:USPTO·EFXRF-3110 • DNIS:2738300 * CSID:+17325309808' DURATION (mm,ss):06·10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 13 of 16
May-02-2007 11:06am From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 18 of 20 

+17325309808 T-093 P.018/020 F-236 

Robinson fails to teach or suggest reporting to a management station of the 

network when a rate exceeds a threshold, much less reporting to a management station 

of the network when a rate of usage of a node resource exceeds a threshold, as 

claimed In Applicants' claim 10. Furthermore, even if Robinson did teach reporting to a· 

management station of the network when a rate exceeds a threshold, Robinson is 

devoid of any teaching or suggestion of determining any rate, much less determining a 

rate using a variable time interval or that the variable time interval comprises a 

difference between a current time and a time at which the node was last polled by the 

management station. 

As such, Robinson fails to teach or suggest "reporting to a management station 

of the network when a rate of change of usage of said node resource exceeds the local 

threshold as determined using local monitoring of the node resource, wherein said rate 

of change of usage of said node resource is determined using a variable time interval 

comprising a difference between a current time and a time at which the node was last 

polled by the management ~tation," as claimed in Applicants' claim 1 o. 

Thus, since Mandal and Robinson each fail to teach or suggest "reporting to a 

management station of the network when a rate of change of usage of said node 

resource exceeds the local threshold as determined using local monitoring of the node 

resource, wherein said rate of change of usage of said node resource is determined 

using a variable time interval comprising a difference between a current time and a time 

at which the node was last polled by the management station," any permissible 

combination of Mandal and Robinson must also fail to teach or suggest "reporting to a 

management station of the network when a rate of change of usage of said node 

resource exceeds the local threshold as determined using local monitoring of the node 

resource, wherein said rate of change of usage of said node resource is determined 

using a variable time interval comprising a difference between a current time and a time 

at which the node was last polled by the management station." Thus, Manda! and 

Robinson, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest Applicants' claim 10, as a 

whole. 

546002-1 

PAGE 18/20 * RCVD AT 5/21200112: 11:57 PM ~astern Daylight Time]• SVR:USPTO·EFXRF-31103 ONIS:2738300 • CSID:+17325309808 • DURATION (mm-ss}:06·10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 14 of 16
May-02-2007 11 :07am From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 19 of 20 

+17325309808 T-093 P.019/020 F-236 

As such, independent claim 10 fully satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103 

and is patentable over Mandal and Robinson. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully 

request that the rejection be withdrawn. 

Claims 6 and 11-24 

Claims 6 and 11-14 depend, either directly or indirectly, from independent claims 

1, 7, and 8, and recite additional limitations therefor. Therefore, dependent claims 6 and 

11-14 also are not obvious over Mand al in view of Robinson, and, thus, fully satisfy the 

requirements of 35 U.S.C. §103 and are patentable thereunder. 

Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request that the rejection be withdrawn. 

546002-1 

PAGE 19120 a RCVD AT 512/200712:11:57 PM ~astern Da~lghtTimeJ • SVR:USPTO·EFXRF-3JW DNIS:2738300 • CSI0:+17325309808 • DURATION (mm-ss):06·10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 15 of 16
May-02-2007 11 :07am From-Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - NJ 

Serial No. 09/813,415 

Page 20 of 20 

+17325309808 

CONCLUSION 

T-093 P.020/020 F-236 

Thus, Applicants submit that all of the claims presently in the application are nonobvious and are patentable under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §103. Further, all claims 

satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112. Accordingly, both reconsideration of this 

application and its swift passage to issue are earnestly solicited. 

If, however, the Examiner believes that there are any unresolved issues requiring 

adverse final action in any of the claims now pending in the application, it is requested 

that the Examiner telephone Michael Bentley or Eamon J. Wall at (732) 530-9404 so 

that appropriate arrangements can be made for resolving such issues as expeditiously 

as possible. 

Dated: _I._._!--:., A_o-1---zPATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP 

595 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 100 

Shrewsbury, New Jersey 07702 

Telephone: 732-530-9404 

Facsimile: 732-530-9808 

546002-1 

Respectfully submitted, 

Eamon J. Wall 

Registration No. 39,414 

Attorney for Appljcant 

PAGE 20/20' RCVD AT 5121200712: 11 :57 PM ~astern Da~ight Time]• SVR:USPTO·EFXRF-3110 i DNIS:2738300' CSID:+173253098Dr DURATION (mm,ss):06·10 

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 85-15 Filed 03/17/21 Page 16 of 16