Ex Parte Nordmark et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2013

10510167 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GUNNAR NORDMARK, THOMAS BODEN,
LARS-OLOF SVENSSON, and PAR WESTLUND
1

____________________

Appeal 2011-003118
Application 10/510,167
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 5-9 and 11-22, all pending claims in the application.
Appellants have previously canceled claims 2-4 and 10. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1
The Real Party in Interest is Xelerated AB. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-003118
Application 10/510,167

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2

The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to data processing in general, and more
particularly to a method and apparatus for pipelined processing of data.
Spec. p. 1, ll. 3-4 (“Field of the invention”).
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention
which is reproduced below (emphasis added to disputed limitation):
1. A method of pipelined processing of a data packet
(100, 315) in a processing means (700) comprising at least two
processing stages (205), said data packet (100) containing
information, said method comprising:
generating an intermediate data packet (315) by adding at
least one of a dummy header (305) and dummy tail (310) to
said data packet (100) , said dummy header (305) and dummy
tail (310) being capable of storing information of a
communication system;
associating (510) information reference (320; 325, 330)
to said intermediate data packet (315) , said information
reference (320; 325, 330) comprising information relating to the
length and position of the information of said data packet (100)
contained in said intermediate data packet (315);
storing said information reference (320, 325, 330) in
additional register (230);

2
Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
May 27, 2010); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 16, 2010); Final
Office Action (“FOA,” mailed Aug. 20, 2009); and the original Specification
(“Spec.,” filed Oct. 4, 2004).
Appeal 2011-003118
Application 10/510,167

3
processing (520) said intermediate data packet (315) in a
processing stage (205); and
said processing (520) of said intermediate data packet
(315) results in a change of the length of said information of
said data packet (100) contained in said intermediate data
packet (315), whereby said information reference (320; 325,
330) is altered (530) in order for said information reference
(320; 325, 330) to reflect said change,
wherein the change in the length of said information of
said data packet (100) comprises:
adding to the length a value representing a length of a
portion of the at least one of the dummy header (305) and
dummy tail (310) of said intermediate data packet (315), the
portion storing information of the communications system, and
subtracting from the length a value representing a portion
of said intermediate data packet representing empty information
after said processing, the method further comprising the step of
determining, upon said intermediate data packet (315)
exiting the last of said at least two processing stages (205b,
205c), (540) whether any bits of at least one of the header end
and the tail end of said intermediate data packet (315) are
superfluous, then removing (545) said superfluous bits from
at least one of the header end and the tail end of said
intermediate data packet (315).

Appeal 2011-003118
Application 10/510,167

4
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Song US 5,818,894 Oct. 6, 1998
Kawarai US 2002/0122424 A1 Sep. 5, 2002
Sonksen US 2003/0046429 A1 Mar. 6, 2003
Lee US 6,996,117 B2 Feb. 7, 2006
Farinacci US 7,016,351 B1 Mar. 21, 2006
Hultsch WO 99/60708 A2 Nov. 25, 1999
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 5-9, 11-12, and 15-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sonksen, Kawarai,
Farinacci, and Hultsch. Ans. 4.
2. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sonksen, Kawarai, Farinacci, Hultsch
and Lee. Ans. 4.
3. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sonksen, Kawarai, Farinacci, Hultsch
and Song. Ans. 4.
ISSUE
Appellants argue (App. Br. 14-18) that the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
Appeal 2011-003118
Application 10/510,167

5
combination of Sonksen, Kawarai, Farinacci, and Hultsch is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Sonksen,
Kawarai, Farinacci, and Hultsch teaches or suggests the limitation of
“determining . . . whether any bits of at least one of the header end and the
tail end of said intermediate data packet [] are superfluous, then removing []
said superfluous bits from at least one of the header end and the tail end of
said intermediate data packet,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Unpatentability Rejection of Claims 1, 5-9, 11-12, and 15-22
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to claim 1, and
we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and
rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Arguments. However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
In summary, Appellants admit that Sonksen teaches generating or
modifying a packet header (App. Br. 17), and Hultsch teaches the removal of
filler bits from a data stream (Id.). However, Appellants contend the
combination of Sonksen and Hultsch does not teach or suggest the removal
of superfluous bits from a header and that, even assuming, arguendo, that
Sonksen teaches removing bits from a header and/or tail, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not look to the teachings of Hultsch, since it
Appeal 2011-003118
Application 10/510,167

6
deals with the removal of superfluous bits from a data stream, and not
packetized data. App. Br. 18.
The Examiner finds “[a]ccording to the broadest reasonable
interpretation, a packet header can be any information or field in a packet
other than the payload data field that is used for conveying some type of
control information.” Ans. 28. In addition, the Examiner finds that
“Sonksen discloses that portions of a packet may be modified, removed or
supplemented” (Id.), and that “Hultsch discloses removing superfluous data
from a packet . . . [such that m]odifying Sonksen in view of the teachings of
Hultsch provides the advantage of efficiently utilizing available network
bandwidth by not wasting it transmitting data that is determined to be
irrelevant or otherwise of no use.” App. Br. 29. We agree with the
Examiner, as discussed below.
We find that the phrase “superfluous bits” means data bits that are no
longer needed for subsequent processing of the data packet. According to
Appellants’ Specification, removal of such unnecessary or superfluous bits
results in more efficient or optimized use of bandwidth. See Spec. 2:30 –
3:3.
We agree with the Examiner and find that Sonksen teaches “[t]he
dynamic stages are configured to modify, remove, or supplement portions of
the packet as the packet or portion thereof passes through the pipeline.”
Sonksen, Abstract. We also find that the packet includes a header. See
Sonksen Fig. 9A (packet 900 includes header 902 and payload 904). In
addition, “[t]he term packet includes the header or tag information of a
packet in addition to any user data associated with packet.” Sonksen
Appeal 2011-003118
Application 10/510,167

7
¶ [0013]. Thus, Sonksen broadly teaches removing bits from a header, e.g.,
including the explicit teaching of removal of a tag (added to a header) that
provides additional routing data. Sonksen ¶ [0094].
We also find that Hultsch shares similar reasons for removing
superfluous filler data to those set forth by Appellants’ Specification, i.e.,
“[t]he advantage of the invention is that efficient use is made of the
transmission bandwidth by removing the superfluous filler data received via
the circuit-switched connection in the data stream.” Hultsch, Abstract.
Thus, Appellants’ invention and Hultsch share a common motivation; to
remove unnecessary (i.e., “superfluous”) bits, and thereby provide for more
efficient use of bandwidth.
Appellants’ contention does not persuade us of error on the part of the
Examiner because Appellants are responding to the rejection by attacking
the references individually, even though the rejection is based upon the
combined teachings of the references. Nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We specifically note that Appellants’ challenge to the references
individually is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s position because all
of the features of the secondary reference (i.e., Hultsch) need not be bodily
incorporated into the primary reference, but consideration should be given to
what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
Appeal 2011-003118
Application 10/510,167

8
(CCPA 1981). Furthermore, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow
the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d
881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In this case, we find that both Sonksen and Hultsch teach removal of
unnecessary bits, i.e., Sonksen removes bits in the tag or header, and Hultsch
removes superfluous bits from the data stream.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 5-9) that
the combination of Sonksen, Kawarai, Farinacci, and Hultsch teaches or
suggests Appellants’ claimed method, including the disputed limitation of
claim 1, as discussed above.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s
characterization of the cited art and related claim construction. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. As
for independent claims 9 and 19, Appellants merely repeat the arguments
presented with respect to claim 1, and do not provide separate arguments
with respect thereto. App. Br. 18-24. We similarly sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants have not raised any additional arguments for patentability
of dependent claims 5-8, 11, 12, 15-18, and 20-22, all rejected on the same
basis as claim 1. We find that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case
for unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 9-25.
Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning.
Appeal 2011-003118
Application 10/510,167

9
Consequently, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 5-8, 11, 12, 15-18, and 20-22.
Unpatentability Rejection of Claims 13 and 14
Appellants have not raised any additional arguments for patentability
of dependent claim 13, rejected as being unpatentable over the combination
of Sonksen, Kawarai, Farinacci, Hultsch, and Lee, nor have any arguments
been presented with respect to the rejection of claim 14 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sonksen, Kawarai, Farinacci, Hultsch,
and Song. Appellants merely allege that claims 13 and 14 are patentable by
virtue of their dependence on claim 9. App. Br. 24-25.
Consequently, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 13 and 14.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the various unpatentability
rejections of claims 1, 5-9 and 11-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited
prior art combinations, and the rejections are sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 5-9, and 11-22 is
affirmed.

Appeal 2011-003118
Application 10/510,167

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED

ELD