Vidhyalakshmi Karthikeyan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 20, 2020

13997445 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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.
13/997,445 06/24/2013 Vidhyalakshmi Karthikeyan RYM-36-2461 8374
23117 7590 04/20/2020
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
MESA, JOEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2020 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIDHYALAKSHMI KARTHIKEYAN and
DETLEF DANIEL NAUCK
Appeal 2018-0080521
Application 13/997,445
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant2 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies Appeal Nos. 2018-008053 (Application No.
13/997,529), 2018-008568 (Application No. 13/997,485), and 2018-008569
(Application No. 13/997,562) as related appeals. See Appeal Brief 4, filed
February 26, 2018 (Appeal Br.).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as British
Telecommunications Public Limited Company. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008052
Application 13/997,445

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “the autonomic operation of
communications networks.” Specification 1, filed June 24, 2013, amended
June 24, 2013 and January 7, 2016 (Spec.). Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter:
1. A communications network comprising a plurality of
network segments, each of the plurality of the network segments
comprising:
a) a segment management module;
b) a plurality of network elements; and
c) a plurality of communications links, wherein the
plurality of network elements are interconnected by the plurality
of communications links,
the communications network being configured such that,
in operation:
i) each of the segment management modules receives
operational data from the plurality of network elements in its
respective network segment;
ii) on the basis of operational data received from the
plurality of network elements, each segment management
module determines the future performance of the plurality of
network elements in the respective network segment; and
iii) in response to a segment management module
determining that the future performance of one or more of the
plurality of network elements in the respective network segment
will be less than a threshold value, one or more data flows is/are
rerouted within the respective network segment,
wherein the communications network is configured as a
segmented network.
Appeal Br. 21.
Appeal 2018-008052
Application 13/997,445

3
REJECTION
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References
1–18 103(a) Asghar,3 Steinberg4
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection and Appellant’s
arguments, and Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning,
findings, and conclusions on pages 3–8 of the Final Office Action mailed
August 11, 2017 (Final Act.), and pages 3–10 of the Examiner’s Answer
mailed June 1, 2018 (Ans.).
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “wherein the communications network is configured
as a segmented network.” Appeal Br. 21. Appellant argues that Steinberg
does not teach or suggest this limitation. See Appeal Br. 13–17; Reply Brief
3–4, 7–8, filed August 1, 2018 (Reply Br.). Appellant contends that
Steinberg concerns “changing routes through a network,” not “a segmented
network.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant also contends that Steinberg’s core and
access networks do not teach or suggest “a segmented network” because the
core and access networks are “not different segments of a single network”
but instead are “separate networks.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that the
paragraph spanning pages 15 and 16 of the written description “forecloses an
overly broad reading” of “segmented network” that includes Steinberg’s
core and access networks. Reply Br. 7. In Appellant’s view, in light of this

3 Asghar et al. (US 2006/0159021 A1; July 20, 2006).
4 Steinberg et al. (US 2004/0136324 Al; July 15, 2004).
Appeal 2018-008052
Application 13/997,445

4
paragraph, “one skilled in the art would recognize” that Steinberg’s core and
access networks do not “amount to a sub-division of a given network into a
plurality of segments, etc., as set forth here.” Reply Br. 7.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. Appellant has not offered a
clear definition of ‘“wherein the communications network is configured as a
segmented network” or presented persuasive evidence that the term
“segmented network” has a recognized meaning in the art. Neither claim 1
nor the written description explicitly defines the disputed limitation, but the
plain language of claim 1 suggests that the limitation encompasses a
communications network divided into segments, each segment including a
segment management module, a plurality of network elements, and a
plurality of communications links that interconnect the network elements.
On its face, the term “segmented network” in ‘“wherein the
communications network is configured as a segmented network” indicates
that the communications network is configured as a network divided into
segments. Claim 1 further recites “[a] communications network comprising
a plurality of network segments” that each include “a segment management
module”; “a plurality of network elements”; and “a plurality of
communications links, wherein the plurality of network elements are
interconnected by the plurality of communications links.” Appeal Br. 21.
This language shows that each network segment includes a segment
management module, a plurality of network elements, and a plurality of
communications links that interconnect the network elements.
The written description describes a similar segmented network. The
written description discloses an exemplary segmented network that includes
network segments that each have an associated segment management
Appeal 2018-008052
Application 13/997,445

5
module and contain communication links and network elements such as
routers, switches, and bridges. See Spec. 3, 10, Figs. 2 (showing a network
segment), 3 (showing an example of a segmented network). The written
description discloses that the communication links interconnect the routers
within a network segment and provide connections to routers in other
network segments. See Spec. 3. The paragraph of the written description
identified by Appellant states that “[a]s will be understood from the
preceding discussion of the present invention,” which includes the
description of the exemplary segmented network discussed above, “it is
necessary to sub-divide the network into a plurality of segments.” Spec. 15.
Taking into account the above statements from the written description and
the plain language of claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“wherein the communications network is configured as a segmented
network” encompasses a communications network divided into network
segments that each include (1) a segment management module, (2) a
plurality of network elements, and (3) a plurality of communication links
that interconnect the plurality of network elements.
As found by the Examiner, see Ans. 4–5, 8, Steinberg teaches such a
communications network. Steinberg discloses interconnected core and
access networks. See, e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 22–23, Abstract, Fig. 1. Steinberg
teaches that each core network includes a core path optimization (CPO)
function (“a segment management module”); network equipment including
routers (“a plurality of network elements”); and paths between and among
the network equipment (“a plurality of communications links”). See, e.g.,
Steinberg ¶¶ 13, 22, 24–25, 28–29, 46–47, 59, Figs. 1, 2. Steinberg teaches
that access networks have a similar access network path optimization (APO)
Appeal 2018-008052
Application 13/997,445

6
function (“a segment management module”); access equipment (“a plurality
of network elements”); and paths between and among the access equipment
(“a plurality of communications links”). See, e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 13, 23, 28–
29, 46–47, 59 Figs. 1, 2.
Steinberg describes each core and access network’s resources (or
resources under each network’s control) as “segments,” Steinberg ¶ 29, and
depicts communication paths between core networks, access networks, and
combinations of the two network types, see, e.g., Steinberg Fig 1. Steinberg
also teaches that a core network segment can include access networks and
other core networks, that an access network segment can include other
access networks, and that other network divisions into core and access
networks may be made. See, e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 29, 32. In light of these
disclosures and teachings, a group of core networks, access networks, or
combinations of the two that have communication paths between or among
them satisfy the “wherein the communications network is configured as a
segmented network” limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Appellant’s argument that Steinberg’s core and access networks are
not part of a single network runs contrary to Steinberg’s disclosure.
Steinberg repeatedly teaches that its core and access networks may form part
of a single larger network. See, e.g., Steinberg Abstract, ¶¶ 9, 32, 59, 61,
Fig. 1. In any case, as discussed above, any group of core networks or access
networks with communication paths between or among them satisfies the
disputed limitation, not just combinations of these network types. For at least
these reasons, we find this argument unpersuasive.
Appellant also contends that the “one or more data flows is/are
rerouted within the respective network segment” limitation recited in the
Appeal 2018-008052
Application 13/997,445

7
claim “highlights” that claim 1 “involves a decentralized network
management approach.” Appeal Br. 9, 10. Appellant argues that Steinberg
not only “does not teach such a decentralized approach” but also “leads
away from” this approach. Appeal Br. 10, 12 (emphasis omitted). This is so,
according to Appellant, because Steinberg teaches a centralized approach,
“namely, that when combining a number of different path segments to form
an optimal network route, it is necessary to have a single entity that is
responsible for determining a route through a network.” Appeal Br. 12.
Relatedly, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s combination of Asghar
and Steinberg “would not render obvious claim 1” because “the combination
at best would involve a centralized approach that would operate completely
differently” than the claimed invention “if a router were to become
overloaded.” Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis omitted).
We disagree. First, claim 1 does not recite “a decentralized approach”
or prohibit Steinberg’s so-called “centralized approach.” Claim 1 recites that
“one or more data flows is/are rerouted within the respective network
segment.” Appeal Br. 21. This limitation does not prohibit having a single
entity that is responsible for determining a route through a network when
combining a number of different path segments to form an optimal network
route, and Appellant has not identified any other limitation in claim 1 that
precludes this approach. In fact, the use of the open-ended term
“comprising” in the preamble of claim 1 indicates that the claimed network
encompasses additional components that perform other functions. See, e.g.,
Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (“At the outset, the open language of claim 1 embraces technology
that may add features to devices otherwise within the claim definition. . . .
Appeal 2018-008052
Application 13/997,445

8
The word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals
that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.”). In any case, Steinberg
teaches that, at least in some embodiments, its core and access networks can
operate in a decentralized fashion. See, e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 36, 43, 59–60.
Second, as found by the Examiner, see Final Act. 4–5, Steinberg
teaches what claim 1 actually requires: that “one or more data flows is/are
rerouted within the respective network segment.” For example, Steinberg
teaches that the core and access networks optimize paths based on the
resources under their respective control, both when establishing a
communication session and when handing off a communication session. See,
e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 5, 13, 23–24, 27–29, 59, Figs 1, items 155, 160, 165, 170,
Fig. 3A, item 300. Core and access networks optimizing paths based on the
resources under their respective control when handing off a communication
session teaches rerouting data flows within the respective network segment.
Finally, Appellant contends that because Asghar does not teach or
suggest “a segmented network, it should be apparent that it also fails to teach
or suggest virtually every other element of claim 1 as well.” Appeal Br. 18;
see also Reply Br. 2, 8–9. Even if Asghar does not teach a segmented
network, the Examiner found that Steinberg teaches a segmented network,
see, e.g., Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 4–5, 8, and concluded that it would have been
obvious to combine Steinberg’s and Asghar’s teachings to arrive at the
claimed invention, see Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 3–10. Appellant’s attacks on
Asghar individually have not shown that the Examiner erred. “[O]ne cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appeal 2018-008052
Application 13/997,445

9
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites “[t]he network according to Claim 1, wherein in iii),
the segment management module, in operation, re-routes one or more data
flows to one or more further network segments.” Appeal Br. 22. Appellant
contends that neither Steinberg nor Asghar teaches or suggest this limitation.
See Appeal Br. 19–20. Appellant contends that because neither reference
“teaches even a single network segment in a segmented network with a
plurality of network segments,” the references cannot teach “any routing to
further network segments.” Appeal Br. 20.
We disagree. For the reasons discussed above, Steinberg teaches a
network segment in a segmented network with a plurality of network
segments. See, e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 13, 22–25, 28–29, 46–47, 59, Figs. 1, 2.
Thus, we find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that the cited art does not
teach or suggest the subject matter recited in claim 5 because neither
Steinberg nor Asghar teaches such a network segment. In addition, Steinberg
teaches rerouting one or more data flows to one or more further network
segments because Steinberg teaches changing from one core or access
network to another when handing off a communication session. See, e.g.,
Steinberg ¶¶ 27–29, Figs. 1, items 155 (Path 1), 160 (Path 2), 165 (Path 3),
170 (Path 4), 3A, item 300.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and found them
unpersuasive. We thus sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 5
under § 103(a). Because Appellant does not present separate, persuasive
arguments for claims 2–4 and 6–18, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
Appeal 2018-008052
Application 13/997,445

10
of these claims under § 103(a). The following table summarizes our
decisions for claims 1–18, the claims before us on appeal:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18 103(a) Asghar, Steinberg 1–18

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

AFFIRMED