Vidhyalakshmi Karthikeyan et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 20, 202013997485 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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. 13/997,485 06/24/2013 Vidhyalakshmi Karthikeyan RYM-36-2458 5920 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 2018-0085681 Application 13/997,485 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, 4, and 11–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies Appeal Nos. 2018-008052 (Application No. 13/997,445), 2018-008053 (Application No. 13/997,529), 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 2018-008568 Application 13/997,485 2 BACKGROUND This patent application concerns “autonomic operation of communications networks.” Specification 1, filed June 24, 2013, amended June 24, 2013 and November 18, 2015 (Spec.). Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A communications network comprising: a plurality of network segments, each of the plurality of network segments comprising a segment management module, one or more routers and a plurality of communications links, the communications links connecting each router to one or more other routers; and a supervisory management module, such that a flow of data between a first endpoint and a second endpoint will pass through a set of the plurality of network segments wherein, in use, the network is configured such that each segment management module predicts the performance of the or each router in the respective segment that carries a data flow based on operational data reported by the or each router and in response to the predicted performance exceeding a threshold value, that segment management module is configured to: (a) identify an alternative routing for the data flow within that network segment; and (b) in response to an alternative routing for the data flow being not found within that network segment, send a report to the supervisory management module, the supervisory management module being configured to, in use, (i) increase the threshold value for the network segment that generated the report; and (ii) decrease the threshold value for one or more other network segments that carry the flow of data, wherein the communications network is a segmented network in which the plurality of network segments are arranged. Appeal Br. 20. Appeal 2018-008568 Application 13/997,485 3 REJECTIONS Claims 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 11, 12 103(a) Fujii,3 Betge-Brezetz,4 Steinberg5 4, 13 103(a) Fujii, Betge-Brezetz, Steinberg, Yan6 DISCUSSION Claim 1 recites “wherein the communications network is a segmented network in which the plurality of network segments are arranged.” Appeal Br. 20. Appellant argues that Steinberg does not teach or suggest this limitation. See Appeal Br. 9–13; Reply Brief 2–4, filed August 20, 2018 (Reply Br.). Appellant contends that Steinberg concerns “changing routes through a network,” not “a segmented network.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant also contends that Steinberg’s core networks do not teach or suggest “a segmented network” because the core networks are “not separate segments in a segmented network” but instead are “separate networks.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that the paragraph spanning pages 3 and 4 of the written description “foreclose[s] . . . overly broad” interpretations of “segmented network” and “network segment” that include Steinberg’s core and access networks. Reply Br. 3. According to the Appellant, in light of this 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. 3. 3 Fujii et al. (US 2004/0103210 A1; May 27, 2004). 4 Betge-Brezetz et al. (US 2004/0098457 A1; May 20, 2004). 5 Steinberg et al. (US 2004/0136324 A1; July 15, 2004). 6 Yan et al. (US 2010/0226390 A1; September 9, 2010). Appeal 2018-008568 Application 13/997,485 4 We find these arguments unpersuasive. Appellant has not offered a clear definition of ‘“wherein the communications network is a segmented network in which the plurality of network segments are arranged” or presented persuasive evidence that the terms “segmented network” and “network segments” have recognized meanings 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 network segments that each include a segment management module, one or more routers, and a plurality of communication links connecting each router to one or more other routers On its face, the recited communication network is “a segmented network in which the plurality of network segments are arranged” in some fashion. Appeal Br. 20. Claim 1 recites that each network segment includes “a segment management module”; “one or more routers”; and “a plurality of communications links, the communications links connecting each router to one or more other routers.” Appeal Br. 20. This language shows that the recited communications network is a segmented network in which a plurality of network segments are arranged, each network segment including a segment management module, one or more routers, and a plurality of communication links connecting each router to one or more other routers. The written description discloses examples of a similar segmented communications network. See Spec. 3 (disclosing that Figure 3 shows “a schematic depiction of a further example of a segmented communications network”). The written description discloses a communications network that includes a plurality of network segments. See, e.g., Spec. 3–4, Figs. 1, 3, 4, 6. The paragraph of the written description identified by Appellant discloses Appeal 2018-008568 Application 13/997,485 5 that this communications network is “divided into a number of network segments.” Spec. 4. The written description discloses that each network segment has an associated “network segment management module” and includes “one or more network routers” and “one or more communications links” that “interconnect the network routers” within a network segment and provide connections to routers in other network segments. Spec. 3; see also Spec. Fig. 2 (showing a network segment). The written description also discloses that “the present invention in certain example embodiments provides a communications network which is divided into a plurality of segments, with each segment comprising one or more routers and one or more communications links that connect the routers. Each of the segments also comprises a segment management module.” Spec. 17. Taking into account these statements from the written description and the plain language of claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “wherein the communications network is a segmented network in which the plurality of network segments are arranged” encompasses a communications network divided into network segments that each include (1) a segment management module, (2) one or more routers, and (3) a plurality of communication links connecting each router to one or more other routers. As found by the Examiner, see Ans. 3–4, 6, Steinberg’s core and access networks teach 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”), routers (“one or more routers”), and paths between and among core network elements (“a plurality of communications links”). See, e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 13, Appeal 2018-008568 Application 13/997,485 6 22, 24–25, 28–29, 46–47, 59, Figs. 1, 2. Steinberg teaches that access networks have a similar access network path optimization (APO) function (“a segment management module”), routing functionality and a network interface for routing (“one or more routers”), and paths between and among access network elements (“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 these core networks, access networks, or combinations of the two that have communication paths between or among them satisfy the “wherein the communications network is a segmented network in which the plurality of network segments are arranged” limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Appellant’s argument that Steinberg’s core networks are not part of a single network runs contrary to Steinberg’s disclosure. Steinberg repeatedly teaches that its core 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, access networks, or combinations of the two with communication paths between or among them satisfies the disputed Appeal 2018-008568 Application 13/997,485 7 limitation, not just groups of core networks. For at least these reasons, we find this argument unpersuasive.7 Appellant also contends that Fujii does not teach or suggest “a supervisory management module, such that a flow of data between a first endpoint and a second endpoint will pass through a set of the plurality of network segments” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues that Fujii “at best disclose[s] only a single segment” and does not “show [a] segment management module.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant also contends that “[t]here is nothing in Fujii that discloses a data flow across multiple network segments” and that there is no teaching in Fujii that the “alleged segments, and their respective management nodes, can interact in order to provide the autonomous network control provided in example embodiments of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 4–6 (making similar arguments). Appellant argues that Betge-Brezetz does not fill these gaps. See Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 6. We disagree. As found by the Examiner, see, e.g., Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 5, Fujii discloses a transmission network that has a plurality of nodes for transmitting user and control signals and a network management system (NMS) for managing and maintaining both the nodes and the transmission network, see, e.g., Fujii ¶¶ 41–43, Fig. 1. Fujii discloses that the nodes are connected to each other by links that carry user and control signals and that 7 If Appellant contends that the “wherein the communications network is a segmented network in which the plurality of network segments are arranged” limitation calls for a network that includes “a supervisory management module,” the Examiner found that the combination of Fujii, Betge-Brezetz, and Steinberg teaches or suggests such a network. See Final Act. 3–6. Appeal 2018-008568 Application 13/997,485 8 each node may be a router. See, e.g., Fujii ¶¶ 41, 43, Figs. 1, 2, 12, 17, 18. Fujii explains that “when the scale of a transmission network is large and the number of nodes have been increased, there are NMSs that are structured in layers by dividing the transmission network into a plurality of areas and providing lower-order NMSs for managing and maintaining the areas respectively and a higher-order NMS for controlling over these lower-order NMSs.” Fujii ¶ 42. In light of these disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Fujii to teach “network segments” (areas of Fujii’s transmission network) that each include a “segment management module” (Fujii’s lower- order NMSs), “one or more routers” (Fujii’s nodes), and “a plurality of communications links” (Fujii’s links). One of ordinary skill in the art would also understand Fujii to teach “a supervisory management module” (Fujii’s higher-order NMSs) and “such that a flow of data between a first endpoint and a second endpoint will pass through a set of the plurality of network segments” (for example, in a large transmission network, the flow of user and control signals in Fujii’s network from a node in a first area through nodes in second and third areas to reach a node in a fourth area). As for Appellant’s argument that Fujii does not disclose that the segment management modules and their management modes “can interact in order to provide the autonomous network control provided in example embodiments of claim 1,” this argument does not point out which limitations in claim 1 Appellant believes Fujii does not teach or suggest and is thus unpersuasive. In any event, the Examiner did not find that Fujii alone teaches all of the interactions and acts recited in claim 1. The Examiner found that a combination of Fujii, Betge-Brezetz, and Steinberg teaches the Appeal 2018-008568 Application 13/997,485 9 interactions and acts recited in claim 1. See, e.g., Final Act. 3–6. Appellant’s attack on Fujii individually has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non- obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). As to Appellant’s arguments about Betge-Brezetz, these arguments rest on Appellant’s contention that Betge-Brezetz does not teach a segment management module or a segmented network. See, e.g., Reply Br. 6. But as discussed above, the Examiner found that other references teach these claim elements and determined that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of these references with the teachings of Betge-Brezetz to arrive at the claimed invention. See, e.g., Final Act. 3–6. We therefore find these arguments unpersuasive. Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Appellant also argues that Appellant’s responses to prior office actions show that neither Fujii nor Betge-Brezetz teaches or suggests the subject matter recited in limitations (a) and (b) of claim 1 and incorporates these responses by reference. See Appeal Br. 13–14. But an appellant may not incorporate by reference responses to prior office actions in their briefs. See, e.g., MPEP § 1205.02 (“It is essential that the Board be provided with a brief fully stating the position of the appellant with respect to each ground of rejection presented for review in the appeal so that no search of the Record is required in order to determine that position. Thus, the brief should not incorporate or reference previous responses.” (emphasis added)). Appellant has thus forfeited these arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (explaining that, with certain exceptions that are inapplicable here, “any Appeal 2018-008568 Application 13/997,485 10 arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal”). Appellant next contends that “[t]here is no logical reason to look to Steinberg” and that Steinberg leads those of skill in the art “away from the approach of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 15. This is so, according to Appellant, because “Steinberg proposes a centralized method” in which “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. 15, 17. In Appellant’s this view, this approach is “antithetical to the operation” recited in limitation (a). Appeal Br. 17. For much the same reason, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s combination of Fujii, Betge-Brezetz, and Steinberg would not operate in the claimed manner. See Appeal Br. 17. We disagree. First, claim 1 does not recite “a decentralized approach” or prohibit Steinberg’s so-called “centralized method.” Limitation (a) recites that the segment management module is configured to “identify an alternative routing for the data flow within that network segment.” Appeal Br. 20. 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. Indeed, 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 Appeal 2018-008568 Application 13/997,485 11 features to devices otherwise within the claim definition. . . . 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 network can operate in a decentralized fashion. See, e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 36, 43, 59–60. Second, as found by the Examiner, see Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 3–4, the cited art teaches or suggests what claim 1 actually requires: a segment management module that is configured to “identify an alternative routing for the data flow within that network segment.” The Examiner determined that the combination of Fujii and Betge-Brezetz suggests this limitation, see Final Act. 4–5, and as discussed above, Appellant’s arguments against Betge-Brezetz individually have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. The Examiner also determined that Steinberg teaches rerouting. See Ans. 3. Steinberg teaches that the core and access networks have respective CPO and APO functions (“segment management modules”) that 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, Figs 1, items 155, 160, 165, 170, Fig. 3A, item 300. CPO and APO functions that optimize paths based on the resources under their respective control when handing off a communication session teach segment management modules configured to “identify an alternative routing for the data flow within that network segment.” CONCLUSION We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and have found them unpersuasive. We thus sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under § 103(a). Because Appellant does not present separate, persuasive Appeal 2018-008568 Application 13/997,485 12 arguments for claims 4 and 11–13, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims under § 103(a). The following table summarizes our decisions for claims 1, 4, and 11–13, the claims before us on appeal: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 11, 12 103(a) Fujii, Betge-Brezetz, Steinberg 1, 11, 12 4, 13 103(a) Fujii, Betge-Brezetz, Steinberg, Yan 4, 13 Overall Outcome 1, 4, 11–13 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation