Vidhyalakshmi Karthikeyan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 20, 2020

13997485 - (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.
13/997,485 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