Machine Zone, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 10, 20202019005263 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/245,718 08/24/2016 Lev Walkin M102103 1070US1 16009 3122 148646 7590 12/10/2020 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/Satori Worldwide LL Attn: IP Docketing P.O. Box 7037 Atlanta, GA 30537-7037 EXAMINER GREENE, JOSEPH L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2452 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/10/2020 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): IPDocketing@wbd-us.com patents@mz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LEV WALKIN ____________ Appeal 2019-005263 Application 15/245,718 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Satori Worldwide, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Although the Appeal Brief is unpaginated (unlike the Reply Brief), we nonetheless refer to the Appeal Brief’s pages in the order they appear in the record. Appeal 2019-005263 Application 15/245,718 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention sizes transmission buffers for plural network connections based on a respective connection’s bandwidth requirement and latency. Data is then transmitted using the determined buffer size. See Spec. ¶¶ 1, 5. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method, comprising: obtaining a respective bandwidth requirement for each of a plurality of network connections between at least one server and at least one client device; determining a respective latency for each network connection; calculating, by one or more computer processors, a first send buffer size and a first receive buffer size for each network connection based on the respective bandwidth requirement and the respective latency for the network connection; setting a new send buffer size for each network connection to the first send buffer size for the network connection; setting a new receive buffer size for each network connection to the first receive buffer size for the network connection, wherein the new receive buffer size is different from the new send buffer size; and transmitting data from the at least one server to the at least one client device using the new send buffer size. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Medapalli (US 2015/0245409 Al; published Aug. 27, 2015), Szilagyi (US 2017/0012906 A1; published Jan. 12, 2017), and Kumar (US 2017/0063734 Al; published Mar. 2, 2017). Ans. 4–7.2 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed January 25, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 2, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed June 28, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2019-005263 Application 15/245,718 3 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND CONTENTIONS Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Medapalli discloses (1) obtaining a respective bandwidth requirement for each of plural network connections between at least one server and at least one client device; (2) determining a respective latency for each network connection; (3) calculating a desired transmission buffer size based on the respective bandwidth requirement and latency for the network connection; (4) setting a new transmission buffer size for each network connection to the desired transmission buffer size for the network connection; and (5) transmitting data from the server to client device using the new transmission buffer size. Ans. 4. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Medapalli does not state explicitly that a desired transmission buffer size is calculated for each network connection based on the respective bandwidth requirement and latency for the network connection, the Examiner cites Szilagyi for teaching this feature. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner also acknowledges that Medapalli and Szilagyi do not state explicitly (1) calculating a first send and receive buffer size, and (2) setting a new buffer size for each network connection to the first receive buffer size that differs from the new send buffer size, but cites Kumar for teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 5. Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest calculating first send and receive buffer sizes for each network connection based on the respective bandwidth requirement and respective latency for the network connection as claimed. Ans. 4–7; Reply Br. 2–5. According to Appellant, Szilagyi does not use the bandwidth requirement and latency of an individual network connection to calculate the connection’s buffer size, Appeal 2019-005263 Application 15/245,718 4 but rather uses a totality of bandwidth requirement and latency parameters of all connections across a network to determine buffer size. Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant adds that not only does Kumar fail to cure that deficiency, but the Examiner’s improperly took “implicit” Official Notice that calculating total latency involves determining each connection’s latency to make up the whole—a finding that is said to assume facts not of record. Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 5–6. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Medapalli, Szilagyi, and Kumar collectively would have taught or suggested calculating first send and receive buffer sizes for each network connection based on the respective bandwidth requirement and respective latency for the network connection (“the calculating limitation”)? ANALYSIS We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on Medapalli and Kumar is undisputed for teaching the particular limitations for which those references were cited (see Ans. 4–5), as is the cited references’ combinability. Rather, as noted above, Appellant’s contentions center on the Examiner’s reliance on Szilagyi for teaching the calculating limitation, and the Examiner’s improper taking of “implicit” Official Notice. See Appeal Br. 4–7; Reply Br. 2–6. This point is significant, for Appellant does not squarely address—let alone persuasively rebut—the Examiner’s reliance on Medapalli for teaching many elements of the disputed calculating limitation. As noted above, the Appeal 2019-005263 Application 15/245,718 5 Examiner finds that Medapalli teaches, among other things, (1) obtaining a respective bandwidth requirement for each of plural network connections between at least one server and at least one client device; (2) determining a respective latency for each network connection; and (3) calculating a desired transmission buffer size based on the respective bandwidth requirement and the respective latency for the network connection. Ans. 4. Our emphasis underscores the Examiner’s undisputed findings that Medapalli determines bandwidth requirements and latency for individual network connections. Nor does Appellant dispute the Examiner’s finding that Medapalli calculates a desired transmission buffer size based on the respective bandwidth requirement and the respective latency for the network connection. Ans. 4. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Medapalli does not state explicitly that a desired transmission buffer size is calculated for each network connection based on the respective bandwidth requirement and respective latency for the network connection, the Examiner cites Szilagyi for teaching this feature. Ans. 4–5. That is, the Examiner cites Szilagyi for teaching what Medapalli does not state explicitly in connection with the calculating limitation. See id. On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Medapalli and Szilagyi for collectively at least suggesting the calculating limitation. As Medapalli’s paragraph 59 explains, connection manager 242 can monitor one or more network connections via connection monitoring 244 that monitors one or more parameters of a network connection, including bandwidth and latency. Based on this connection monitoring, parameters can be adjusted as noted in Medapalli’s paragraph 61— Appeal 2019-005263 Application 15/245,718 6 parameters that the Examiner finds correspond to buffer size in paragraph 51. See Ans. 4. The import of this functionality is that Medapalli adjusts buffer size based on monitored bandwidth and latency for individual connections—an adjustment that at least suggests an associated buffer size calculation for each connection. That Medapalli not only determines that a particular connection is unsuitable or not preferred due to latency, but also applies management policies responsive to per-connection parameters in paragraph 61 only bolsters the Examiner’s findings in this regard. Nevertheless, we see no error in the Examiner’s additional reliance on Szilagyi for at least suggesting the recited calculation, particularly given Szilagyi’s teaching in paragraph 81 that buffer size can be the result of experimentation based on bandwidth and latency parameters of a network. Even assuming, without deciding, that Szilagyi’s reference to these parameters of “a network” refers to the total bandwidth and latency parameters of all connections across a network as Appellant contends (Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 4), performing such buffer size calculations on an individual network connection basis would have been at least an obvious variation, particularly given Szilagyi’s link auto-tuning feature that uses latency and bandwidth to adjust parameters responsive to changing link conditions. See Szilagyi ¶ 82. This link-based functionality at least suggests performing the associated calculations on an individual network connection basis, particularly given the meaning of the term “link” in Szilagyi’s parlance, namely a distinct bi-directional data path for network traffic between two endpoints as the Examiner indicates. See Ans. 9 (citing Szilagyi ¶ 34); see also Szilagyi Fig. 1A (showing individual links 105). That Appellant did not squarely address—let alone persuasively Appeal 2019-005263 Application 15/245,718 7 rebut—the Examiner’s reliance on Szilagyi’s link-based functionality in paragraphs 82 and 34 (see Appeal Br. 4–7; Reply Br. 2–6) only further weighs in favor of the Examiner. In short, calculating buffer sizes for individual network connections in lieu of, or in addition to, doing so for an entire network would have been at least an obvious variation, given Szilagyi’s teachings considered in light of Medapalli. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise, or that performing such calculations for each individual network connection would have somehow been beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2–20 not argued separately with particularity. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103 Medapalli, Szilagyi, Kumar 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation