Ex Parte Malboubi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13438493 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/438,493 04/03/2012 Mehdi Malboubi
56436 7590 08/02/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82916269 4227
EXAMINER
PATEL, RONAK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEHDI MALBOUBI, CHEN-NEE CHUAH, and
PUNEET SHARMA
Appeal2015-004231
Application 13/438,493 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., KEVIN C. TROCK, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004231
Application 13/438,493
Invention
The claimed invention relates to solving underdetermined problems
concerning traffic matrix estimation. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
partitioning an under-determined problem into a plurality
of sub-problems of reduced order;
solving the sub-problems using independent sub-spaces,
to generate a plurality of local solutions to a same traffic matrix
estimation, the local solutions representing side information with
respect to other local solutions; and
fusing the local solutions to generate a global solution to
the underdetermined problem.
Rejections
Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 14--17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duffield et al. (US 7,293,086 Bl; Nov.
6, 2007) and Mortier et al. (US 8,077,718 B2; Dec. 13, 2011).
Claims 4--9, 13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Duffield, Mortier, and Nucci et al. (US 7, 729 .269
Bl; June 1, 2010).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Duffield, Mortier, and Wang et al. (US 2012/0110089 Al;
publ. May 3, 2012).
2
Appeal2015-004231
Application 13/438,493
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions2 reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claims 1, 15, and 19
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1, 15, and 19 because the combination of Duffield and Mortier does not
teach or suggest local solutions and side information as recited in these
claims. App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 1--4. Appellants argue Duffield's initial
solution is a traffic matrix estimation, not a local solution in an independent
sub-space. App. Br. 7. Appellants argue Duffield merely alleges an
improvement in traffic matrix estimation by removing empty demands from
the initial solution, and that removing empty demands and solving the full
traffic matrix estimation is not generating local solutions. Id. Appellants
also argue that because Duffield does not disclose local solutions, Duffield
cannot disclose that such solutions are side information to each other. App.
Br. 8.
2 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any
review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims
for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101 and determine whether they are
directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea under the Supreme Court
Decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
3
Appeal2015-004231
Application 13/438,493
The Examiner finds that Duffield employs a plurality of local
solutions, such as tomographic methods, to obtain an initial estimate of a
solution. Ans. 3, 4. The Examiner also finds that Duffield teaches that the
final estimate of the traffic matrix is selected by choosing the solution in the
space of those admitted by the tomographic model that is "closest" to the
solution obtained by the gravity model for generating precise traffic matrix
estimation. Id. Thus, the Examiner finds, Duffield teaches using a plurality
of solutions for estimating a precise traffic matrix throughout the network.
Id. (citing Duffield, Figs. 3, 5; col. 7, 11. 10-13; 28--42; col. 8, 11. 54---62).
The Examiner also finds that Mortier teaches a client application that
uses a database server to query about traffic on the network. Ans. 4. The
queries, the Examiner finds, provide real-time information (side
information) about traffic problems. Ans. 5. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious at the time of the invention to combine Duffield
and Mortier to supplement real-time analysis information about traffic
patterns and/or the traffic matrix with other solutions to improve/track the
accuracy of results available from end-system monitoring data. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant's arguments do not provide
sufficient evidence or a technical line of reasoning to persuade us the
Examiner's findings constitute error. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
combination of Duffield and Mortier does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitations of independent claims 1, 15, and 19. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Remaining Claims 2-14, 16--18, and 20
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to the remaining claims. Rather, Appellants merely
4
Appeal2015-004231
Application 13/438,493
assert that these claims are allowable because of their dependency on claims
1, 15, and 19, and that Nucci and Wang do not remedy the alleged
deficiencies of Duffield and Mortier. See App. Br. 9-11. As such, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require applicants to articulate more
substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated
separately.") Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-
14, 16-18, and 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5