Ex Parte Jocha et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 10, 2016

13517281 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/517,281 07/09/2012 Dávid Jocha 4015-8179 4038
24112 7590 11/10/2016
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
MENDAYE, KIDEST H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/10/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID JOCHA, ANDRAS KERN,
and ANDRAS CSASZAR
____________________

Appeal 2015-006745
Application 13/517,281
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 16–34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Appeal 2015-006745
Application 13/517,281

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to providing requested feedback to a
path computation element. Spec. 5. Claim 16, reproduced below with the
disputed limitations in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
16. A method for use in a Path Computation Client of a node in a
network, the method comprising:
sending a request message to a Path Computation Element of
the network for computation of a path;
receiving a response message from the Path Computation
Element comprising information identifying a calculated path;
attempting to set up a connection based on the calculated path;
receiving, from the Path Computation Element, a request for
feedback on a result of the attempt to set up the connection;
reporting the result of the attempt to the Path Computation
Element.

REJECTIONS
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter. Final Act. 3–4.
Claims 16–20, 22–28, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Douville et al. (EP 2 009 848 A1; published Dec. 31,
2008) (“Douville”). Final Act. 4–9.
Claims 21 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Douville and Chen et al. (US
2009/0245253 A1; published Oct. 1, 2009) (“Chen”). Final Act. 10–11.
Claims 31–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Douville and Lee et al. (US
2009/0110395 A1; published Apr. 30, 2009) (“Lee”). Final Act. 11–12.
Appeal 2015-006745
Application 13/517,281

3
ANALYSIS
§ 101 Rejection
Appellants contend:
Applicant and Examiner came to agreement on amendments that
would overcome this rejection. Those amendments were
submitted in Applicant’s After Final response dated Aug. 13,
2014, and were subsequently admitted by the Examiner (see
Amendment After Final or under 37 C.F.R. 1312 initialed by the
examiner, mailed Sept. 23, 2014).
App. Br. 11.
We see no indication from the record that Appellants’ amendments
were admitted by the Examiner or that the Examiner has withdrawn the
§ 101 rejection. Although we acknowledge the Examiner’s initials on the
September 23, 2014 Amendment After Final, the Advisory Action mailed on
the same day, indicates that the proposed amendments “will not be entered.”
Adv. Act. 1. Moreover, the Examiner’s Answer does not indicate that the §
101 rejection was withdrawn. Ans. 2 (“Every ground of rejection set forth in
the Office action dated August 05, 2013 from which the appeal is taken is
being maintained by the examiner . . .”).
Accordingly, on this inconsistent record, we summarily sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as to claim 30.
§ 102 Rejections
Appellants contend Douville does not disclose “receiving, from the
Path Computation Element, a request for feedback on a result of the attempt
to set up the connection,” as recited in independent claim 16 and
commensurately recited in independent claims 22, 23, and 30. App. Br. 6–7,
10. Rather, Appellants argue Douville discloses the Path Computation
Appeal 2015-006745
Application 13/517,281

4
Client (“PCC”) sends an unsolicited acknowledgement ACK back to the
Path Computation Element (“PCE”). App. Br. 6–9.
The Examiner finds “[w]hen the PCE replies to the requested path,
[the] PCE includes a request for notification whether the proposed path is
used to set up a connection successfully or not, using (PcNtf message) which
contains Request Parameter (RP) object to refer to a particular path
computation request.” Ans. 5, citing Douville ¶¶ 18–25.
On the record before us, we are unable to ascertain sufficient support
for the Examiner’s findings in Douville. In particular, the Examiner fails to
identify where Douville discloses the request for notification in the PCE
reply to the requested path. We agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 2–3) that
the notification message described in Douville and relied upon by the
Examiner relates to the acknowledgment sent from the PCC to the PCE.
(See Douville ¶¶ 19–25). The disputed limitation, on the other hand, relates
to the PCC receiving a request for feedback from the PCE. We are unable to
identify within the cited portion of Douville any disclosure of the disputed
limitation.
Moreover, the Examiner’s findings that “[i]f Douville’s PCC had not
received a request for response message from the path computing device, the
PCC would not have a reason to send an acknowledgement message or
connection failed result back to PCE,” (Ans. 5) fails to address Appellants’
argument that the notification message (PCNtf message) may be solicited or
unsolicited. See App. Br. 9.
Therefore, on this record, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of independent claims 16, 22, 23, and 30. For the same reasons, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 17–20 and 24–28.
Appeal 2015-006745
Application 13/517,281

5

§ 103 Rejections
Because there is no evidence before us that the additional references
cited by the Examiner for the obviousness rejections cure the deficiency of
Douville, for the same reasons as set forth above, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 21, 29, and 31–34.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 30 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 16–20, 23–28,
and 30 is reversed.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21, 29, and
31–34 is reversed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART