Ex Parte Malboubi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201613438493 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation