Ex Parte Ziegler et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2016

13194037 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/194,037 07 /29/2011 Michael L. Ziegler 56436 7590 04/01/2016 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. 82690033 9122 EXAMINER MYERS, ERIC A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2474 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2016 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 MICHAEL L. ZIEGLER, STEVEN GLEN JORGENSEN, andJONATHANM. WATTS Appeal2014-007607 Application 13/194,037 1 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. McMILLIN, 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 1-17. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal2014-007607 Application 13/194,037 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1---6, 8, and 10-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dohm (US 2006/0104275 Al, May 18, 2006), Stewart et al. (US 2005/0147114 Al, July 7, 2005) ("Stewart") and Redi et al. (US 2007/0248089 Al, Oct. 25, 2007) ("Redi"). Final Act. 3-16. Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dohm, Stewart, and Redi, and Yokoyama (US 8,045,644 B2, Oct. 25, 2011). Final Act. 16-18. THE CLAIMED INVENTION The present invention generally relates to routing received data packets from sources to the desired destinations, and in particular to "techniques for sending a data packet from a source node to a destination node the minimal number of times, while at the same time avoiding the problem of multiple output queues that cannot all simultaneously accept the data packet." Spec. i-fi-19, 14. Independent claims 1 and 8 are directed to methods; and independent claim 14 is directed to a device. App. Br. 14--16. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method comprising: receiving a request message, at a destination node, which identifies a data packet, wherein the request message does not include the data packet and the data packet is associated with a pending request data structure; retrieving, from the pending request data structure, an indication of output queues that are in need of the data packet; determining, by the destination node, the indicated output queues that are able to receive the data packet; and 2 Appeal2014-007607 Application 13/194,037 sending a response message to a source node indicating refusal of the request message in response to identifying that at least one output queue is unable to receive the data packet. ANALYSIS \Ve have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. \Ve are not persuaded that AppeHants identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references. \Ve adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection frmn which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Ansvver. \Ve provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. A.ppeHants contend the combination of references fails to teach "receiving a request message ... which identifies a data packet, \vherein the request message does not include the data packet," as recited in claim L App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants argue Dohm's "data is sent preferably in the fQrJH __ Q_Lp_g_~~J~_~J~_,'' and Dohm does not teach "JJ1~ __ IS'.9.!J.~-~1.JES'.!?.§.9:gS'. __ Q_QS'._§ not include the data packet" A.pp. Br. 8. /\.ppellants also argue Recii does "not teach, suggest, or render obvious, 'receiving a request message, at a destination node, which identifies a data packet, wherein the request message does not include the data packet ... '" App. Br. 10. vVhile the Examiner re1ies on Dohm to teach "receiving a request rnessage, at a destination node, which identifies a data packet, wherein the data packet is associated with a pending request data structure/' and retrieving an indication of output queues and determining which output queues are able to 3 Appeal2014-007607 Application 13/194,037 receive the data packet~ the Examiner notes Dohm does not "specifica11y disclose the request message does not include the data packet," and instead relies on Redi to teach this limitation. Ans. 3---4; see Final Act 4----5. \Ve agree with the Examiner that Redi "teaches the request message does not include the data packet." See Ans. 5. Appellants' contentions fai1 to take into account what the collective teachings of Dohm, Stewart and Redi would have suggested to one of 0 . . 0~ ordinarv skrn in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner's .,, prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981 ). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. (citations omitted). This reasoning is applicable here because the Examiner used the combined teachings of Dohm, Stewart, and Redi in the rejection of claim 1. Here, the Examiner specifically relies on Dohm to teach "receiving a request message, at a destination node, which identifies a data packet" and "the data packet is associated with a pending request data structure," as recited in claim 1; and the Examiner specifically relies on Redi to teach "the request message does not include the data packet," as recited in claim 1. Appellants have not provided arguments that Redi fails to teach a message not including a data packet. In fact, Appellants acknowledge "the Redi reference may teach that a request message ... does not contain a data 4 Appeal2014-007607 Application 13/194,037 packet" A pp. Br. 10. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive of Examiner effor. Appellants further contend the combination of references fails to teach "sending a response message to a source node indicating refusal of the request message/' as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7. Specifically~ Appellants argue Stewart's "[i]gnoring or discarding data units ... is not analogous to sending a rn.§I?_QTI~S'..JI1~§_§_9,g_~ to a source node indicating refusal of the request message." A.pp. Br. 9. However, Appe11ants offer no evidence to support a definition of "refusal of the request message" to exclude ignoring or discarding data units. See App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner cites to paragraph 40 of Stewart) which teaches when "a port becomes unavailable .. the logic 117 may ignore or discard those data units addressed to the individual portion, the multicast portion and/or the broadcast pmiion for that pore' and "the logic 117 rnay report the port exceptions and its response to the source of the data units.~' Ans. 4----5. We agree with the Examiner that ,__. paragraph 40 of Stewart teaches "sending a response message to a source node" which "include ignoring or discarding those data units . . . interpreted as a refusal of the data units because the data units are not accepted by the ports and are thus refused.'' Ans. 4. The Examiner's findings are supported by the cited paragraph in Stewart and we detennine the Examiner's reasoning is sound. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive of Examiner enor. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejection of commensurate independent claims 8 and 14, not 5 Appeal2014-007607 Application 13/194,037 separately argued (see App. Br. 7-11 ), as well as the rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-17, not separately argued (see App. Br. 11, 12). DECISION The rejections of claims 1-17 are 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 6