Ex Parte BrussDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201411813137 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation