Machine Zone, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 10, 2020

2019005263 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2020)

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