Ex Parte Bruss

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2014

11813137 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOERG BRUSS
____________

Appeal 2011-012709
Application 11/813,137
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL L. HOELTER and ANNETTE R.
REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Joerg Bruss (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 11–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a network node in a
telecommunications network and a method in a telecommunications network
of controlling a first Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) protocol
instance associated with a redundantly implemented SCTP endpoint in a
network node. Independent claim 11 is illustrative:
Appeal 2011-012709
Application 11/813,137

2
11. A network node in a telecommunication network, the
network node comprising:

a first Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
protocol instance providing redundancy of an SCTP endpoint;

a peer SCTP protocol instance, wherein the first SCTP
protocol instance is connected to the peer SCTP protocol
instance via an SCTP connection;

a second SCTP protocol instance, wherein the first SCTP
protocol instance is further connected to the further SCTP
protocol instance providing redundancy of the SCTP endpoint
via a consistency protocol for providing state consistency
between the first SCTP protocol instance and the further SCTP
protocol instance and via a connection for forwarding messages
addressed to the second protocol instance to be processed by
the first protocol instance or vice versa;

wherein for the first SCTP protocol instance, an idle
mode of operation is defined, and in the idle mode of operation,
SCTP messages received by the first SCTP instance are
forwarded to the second SCTP protocol instance and messages
received by the second SCTP instance are forwarded to the first
instance; and

wherein the network node includes a decision unit for
deciding, when the first SCTP protocol instance is in the idle
mode of operation, according to a message type associated with
a received SCTP message, whether or not to actively process
the received SCTP message.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over McClellan (US 2003/0120716 A1, published June
26, 2003) in view of Schirdewahn (US 2005/0268182 A1, published Dec. 1,
2005).
Appeal 2011-012709
Application 11/813,137

3
ANALYSIS
Appellant presents arguments collectively directed to independent
claim 11, and “analogous claim 16.” Appeal Br. 5. We will take claim 11
as representative of these two claims. Appellant does not separately argue
the patentability of claims 12–15, so those claims stand or fall with claim 11,
from which they depend.
The Examiner takes the position that McClellan discloses all
limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of an explicit
teaching of when, “in the idle mode of operation, SCTP messages received
by the first SCTP instance are forwarded to the second SCTP protocol
instance and messages received by the second SCTP instance are forwarded
to the first instance.” Answer 6. The Examiner finds that Schirdewahn
teaches this limitation, citing to paragraph 20, lines 2–4 of Schirdewahn,
which discloses, according to the Examiner, that a standby board forwards to
an active board. Id. From this, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to modify the McClellan system to include the function of
forwarding messages, as disclosed by Schirdewahn, between first and
second SCTP instances, “to move the responsibility of routing to the node in
standby or idle mode.” Id. The Examiner additionally notes that McClellan,
in an alternative embodiment, also discloses the forwarding of messages
from a passive node to an active node. Ans. 12–13.
Appellant does not appear to take issue with the Examiner’s
interpretation of McClellan as it pertains to the limitations set forth in claim
11. Appellant argues that, when the references are combined as proposed by
the Examiner, the combined teachings do not teach or render obvious the
subject matter of claim 11. Appeal Br. 8. The support for this position is
Appeal 2011-012709
Application 11/813,137

4
represented in Appellant’s schematic illustrations of the Schirdewahn system
(Appeal Brief, Figure 3), and of what Appellant argues would result when
the teachings of Schirdewahn and McClellan are combined (Appeal Brief,
Figure 4).
Essentially, Appellant interprets boards 2, 3 of Schirdewahn as
belonging to what Appellant describes in the Specification as the IP layer of
the node, and that, as applied to the McClellan system, would provide “a
link [] between the two IP receivers but not the supervisory functions.
Communication between the [two] supervisory functions is required which
is what the McClellan reference discloses.” Appeal Br. 8; Fig. 4 in Appeal
Br. Appellant thus appears to be arguing that a complete bodily
incorporation of the teachings of Schirdewahn into the McClellan system
would not result in the claimed system. The test for obviousness is not,
however, whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Although the Examiner initially characterizes boards 2, 3 of
Schirdewahn as SCTP instances, we do not view the Examiner’s rejection as
involving a complete bodily incorporation of teachings as argued by
Appellant. Instead, the Examiner takes the position that Schirdewahn
renders obvious the forwarding of messages between devices in active and
passive modes. Ans. 12. The Examiner applies that teaching to first and
second SCTP instances in McClellan.
Appellant’s arguments thus do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s position. The rejection of claims 11 and 16 is therefore
sustained. Claims 12–15 fall with claim 11.
Appeal 2011-012709
Application 11/813,137

5
DECISION
The rejection of claims 11–20 as being obvious over McClellan and
Schirdewahn 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).

AFFIRMED

hh