Ex Parte Partridge

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 29, 2012

10096193 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CRAIG PARTRIDGE
_____________

Appeal 2009-012911
Application 10/096,193
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012911
Application 10/096,193

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 2-10 and 12-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to performing packet based
data communications over a parallel set of sublinks. The sublinks are
separated into an available set of sublinks and a busy set of sublinks.
Packets ready for transmission are then striped over sublinks in the available
sublink set. See Spec. 7:5-13.
Claim 6, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
6. A method for performing packet based data communications executed on
a processor unit operatively coupled to two or more communication sublinks
to receive data and a single sublink to transmit data, the method comprising
the steps of:
determining which sublinks are in an available set of sublinks and
which sublinks are in a busy set of sublinks;
striping packets of data over the available set of sublinks;
extracting packets of data received in parallel over the available
sublinks; and
transmitting the packets of data serially over the single sublink at a
bandwidth at least greater than the bandwidth associated with any one of the
available sublinks.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
McHale US 5,852,655 Dec. 22, 1998
Appeal 2009-012911
Application 10/096,193

3
Phillips US 6,118,765 Sep. 12, 2000
Dyke US 6,148,006 Nov. 14, 2000
Bhaskar US 6,253,247 B1 Jun. 26, 2001
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 2-8 and 12-14 as being obvious
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Bhaskar and McHale.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 10 as being obvious under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) over Bhaskar, McHale, and Phillips.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 15-17 as being obvious under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) over Bhaskar and Dyke.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Bhaskar
and McHale teaches or suggests the limitation of “determining
which sublinks are in an available set of sublinks and which
sublinks are in a busy set of sublinks” as recited in claims 6 and 14
and similarly recited in claim 13?
2. Did the Examiner articulate a rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness in combining Bhaskar and Dyke?

ANALYSIS
1. Analysis with respect to the rejection of claims 2-10 and 12-14
Appellant argues that the combination of Bhaskar and McHale fails to
teach or suggest the limitation of “determining which sublinks are in an
available set of sublinks and which sublinks are in a busy set of sublinks” as
recited in claims 6 and 14 and similarly recited in claim 13 (Br. 11).
Appeal 2009-012911
Application 10/096,193

4
Appellant specifically argues that establishing connections to form a “fat
pipe” has nothing to do with determining which sublinks are in an available
set of sublinks (Br. 12). Appellant further argues that McHale merely
teaches a table showing activity or inactivity of a given modem line, and
does not teach determining which sublinks are in an available set of sublinks
and which sublinks are in a busy set of sublinks (Br. 13).
Appellant further alleges that the articulated motivation by the
Examiner is irrelevant because it is a mere coincidence that both references
are capable of employing xDSL modems (Br. 15). Appellant also argues
that there is no reasonable expectation of success in the combination because
both references are from disparate fields of endeavor (Br. 16).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9) that Bhaskar teaches separate
communication lines that form a virtual connection, (i.e., a fat pipe 38) (col.
4, ll. 28-33), and these lines or sublinks are inherently either going to be
available, idle, or inactive. We also agree with the Examiner’s citation to
Bhaskar for teaching determining availability of sublinks (Ans. 5). The cited
section of Bhaskar teaches a requisite number of modem connections are
made and some users benefit through parallel transmission or several
connections (i.e., sublinks) with one pipe 38 per user (col. 5, ll. 59-67).
Those connections or sublinks, which are requisite connections, are
necessarily available connections. In other words, by determining the
required connections necessarily there is a determination of the required
sublinks if the required connection is a fat pipe.
We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5, 9) that Bhaskar teaches
using xDSL modems (col. 4, ll. 54-58). McHale explicitly teaches that
Appeal 2009-012911
Application 10/096,193

5
xDSL modems determine which sublinks are an available set of sublinks and
which are a busy set of sublinks (col. 13, ll. 42-45, 50-60). We further agree
with the Examiner that the xDSL activity table indicates whether the
modem’s lines are active or inactive (Ans. 10). The Examiner’s cited
section clearly indicates that the activity table determines status information
of data lines (col. 2, ll. 49-55).
We also agree with the Examiner’s motivation (Ans. 10-11) to
combine the references because McHale’s invention describes xDSL data
services using an activity table as being advantageous in allocating system
resources (see col. 2, ll. 49-59 ). Thus, we do not agree with Appellant’s
allegation that the articulated motivation by the Examiner is irrelevant (Br.
15).
We also do not agree with Appellant’s argument of no reasonable
expectation of success because both references are from disparate fields of
endeavor (Br. 16). On the contrary, both references are from the same field
of endeavor pertaining to xDSL communications.
For these reasons, we will affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 6, 13, and 14 and of their dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, and
12 which were not separately argued. We will also affirm the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 9 and 10 which were not separately argued.

2. Analysis with respect to the rejection of claims 15-17
Appellant argues that the Examiner provided no explanation or
support for the proposition that one of ordinary skill in the art would be
motivated to combine Bhaskar’s teachings with the Wave Length Division
Appeal 2009-012911
Application 10/096,193

6
Multiplexing of Dyke (Br. 16-17). Furthermore, Appellant states that the fat
pipe in Bhaskar is a modem connection, not an optical connection (Br. 17).
We do not agree with Appellant. We agree with the Examiner (Ans.
8-9) that while Bhaskar does not teach the particular type of multiplexing of
Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM), Dyke teaches such multiplexing
over optical links to improve system flexibility (col. 7, ll. 6-12; col. 11, ll.
36-40) and since Bhaskar taught xDSL technology over optical links, one
skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the two to increase
system flexibility in Bhaskar by using WDM. We further note that Dyke
teaches WDM in the xDSL environment (col. 11, ll. 36-40).
We also do not agree with Appellant’s argument regarding Bhaskar
not teaching determining at least one of busy or available state (Br. 16),
because as we stated supra Bhaskar teaches determining availability of
sublinks (see Ans. 5 and col. 5, ll. 59-67).
For these reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
15 and claims 16 and 17, which were not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of
Bhaskar and McHale teaches or suggests the limitation of
“determining which sublinks are in an available set of sublinks and
which sublinks are in a busy set of sublinks” as recited in claims 6
and 14 and similarly recited in claim 13.
2. The Examiner articulated a rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness in combining Bhaskar and Dyke.

Appeal 2009-012911
Application 10/096,193

7
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2-10 and 12-17 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc