Ex Parte Bichot et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 5, 201310573842 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GUILLAUME BICHOT, SHAILY VERMA, and ZORAN KOSTIC ____________ Appeal 2010-007988 Application 10/573,842 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JUSTIN BUSCH, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-30, 32-41, and 44-46. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Claims 31, 42, and 43 have been cancelled. Appeal 2010-007988 Application 10/573,842 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to Appellants, their invention relates to a method for controlling bandwidth allocation of first and second data packet types in a network by determining a throughput rate of the first data packet type in the network and reducing the throughput rate of the first data packet type when the throughput rate reaches a predetermined level. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention (disputed limitation italicized): 1. A method for controlling bandwidth allocation of transmission control protocol data packet types and second data packet types in a network, said method comprising: determining, by an intermediate device, a throughput rate of at least one of said transmission control protocol data packet types in said network; and reducing, by said intermediate device, said throughput rate of said at least one of said data packet types through said network when said throughput rate reaches a predetermined level. Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 7-14, 18-24, 26, 28-30, 32-35, 39- 41, and 44-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Mahiddini (US 2003/0084182 A1, May 1, 2003). The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 15-17, 25, 27, and 36-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahiddini and Ma (WO 99/04536, Jan. 28, 1999). Appeal 2010-007988 Application 10/573,842 3 Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Mahiddini discloses “reducing, by said intermediate device, said throughput rate of said at least one of said data packet types through said network when said throughput rate reaches a predetermined level,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11. 2 Instead, Appellants argue that Mahiddini “reduces the throughput rate of all data packet types in accordance with the characteristics of the individual packet.” Id. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 because Mahiddini fails to teach the argued limitation? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasoning set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that Mahiddini teaches the recited limitation. The Examiner relies on paragraph [0051] of Mahiddini, which states: In addition, in this example, the tool 34 includes a bandwidth smoother 64 which puts limits on the bandwidth in order to comply with certain predetermined constraints, for example it calculates bit rate in real time and then adds or subtracts time in order to keep the bit rate at a constant value. 2 We refer to Appellants’ Revised Appeal Brief dated December 3, 2009. Appeal 2010-007988 Application 10/573,842 4 Ans. 4-5, 27. Thus, Mahiddini discloses limiting bandwidth (or throughput rate) in accordance with a predetermined constraint, such as a constant rate (i.e., a throughput rate at a predetermined level), by adjusting (e.g., reducing) the throughput rate. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as well as independent claims 11, 21, 32, and 41 and the remaining dependent claims, which Appellants have argued based on the same reasons stated for claim 1. App. Br. 11-14. CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 7-14, 18-24, 26, 28-30, 32-35, 39-41, and 44-46 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 5, 6, 15-17, 25, 27, and 36-38 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-30, 32-41, and 44-46 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). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation