Ex Parte Bell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2017

12984298 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2017)

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.
12/984,298 01/04/2011 PAUL G. BELL PATCM14221-US -PRI 2040
22917 7590 04/24/2017
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
IP Law Docketing
500 W. Monroe
43rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60661
EXAMINER
ROUDANI, OUSSAMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2017 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):
U S Adocketing @ motorolasolutions. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL G. BELL, JEFFERY T. ESCHBACH,
and SONUM MATHUR
Appeal 2016-004917
Application 12/984,298
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 6, 7, 13—18, and 22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention aggregates sites when connectivity to a core and
zone controller therein is lost. An isolated site is able to connect to the
network if a core fails so that conventional multicast traffic traverses a direct
link between each isolated site and the network. See generally Abstract;
Spec. H31—33. Claims 1 and 14 are illustrative:
Appeal 2016-004917
Application 12/984,298
1. A method for, within a communication system in which a plurality
localized sites are linked via a wide-area network and master site,
compensating for loss of connectivity to the master system site, the method
comprising:
prior to loss of connectivity to the master site, assigning sparse-mode
multicast addresses, by a zone controller in the master site, for multicast
calls originating from subscribers in the localized sites, and routing the
multi-cast calls, via the master site, in accordance with a sparse-mode
multicast protocol; and
responsive to a detected loss of connectivity to the master system site:
a local controller in a first one of the plurality of localized sites taking
over from the zone controller in the master site to provide multicast services
to the subscribers in the first localized site; and
assigning, by the local controller, a dense-mode multicast address for
multicast calls originating from subscribers in the first localized site, and
routing the multicast calls, via the first localized site, in accordance with a
dense-mode multicast protocol.
14. A method for providing local network connectivity in a multi-
castpacket-switched conventional communication system, the method
comprising:
segmenting multicast groups in the communication system into a
wide-area domain and a local domain using sparse-mode and dense-mode
multicast protocols, respectively;
routing multicast traffic to a network domain for which the multicast
traffic is segmented; and
assigning multicast addresses to the multicast groups such that in
normal operation of the communication system, wide-area scope sparse­
mode multicast addresses are assigned to groups, and responsive to detecting
a failure mode operation of the communication system, local scope dense­
mode multicast addresses are assigned to the multicast groups.
2
Appeal 2016-004917
Application 12/984,298
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Popovich (US 2002/0186652 Al; Dec. 12,
2002) and Korns (US 7,075,929 B2; July 11, 2006). Final Act. U14.1
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Popovich, Korns, and Cook (US 6,006,106; Dec. 21,
1999). Final Act. 14-15.
The Examiner rejected claims 15—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Popovich, Korns, Kwong (US 7,633,908 Bl; Dec. 15,
2009), and Cook. Final Act. 16—24.
The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Popovich, Kwong, Cook, Korns, and Hegde (US
2011/0296054 Al; Dec. 1, 2011). Final Act. 2A-26.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER POPOVICH AND KORUS
The Examiner finds that Popovich discloses a method for
compensating for losing connectivity to a master system site (core site 221)
by, among other things, assigning sparse-mode multicast addresses for
multicast calls originating from subscribers in localized sites, namely
repeater sites 204, 205 and console site 217. Final Act. 5—7. According to
the Examiner, responsive to a detected loss of connectivity to the master
system site, (1) a “local controller,” namely a secondary Rendezvous Point
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed April
30, 2015 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed September 4, 2015 (“App.
Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 22, 2016 (“Ans.”); and
(4) the Reply Brief filed April 8, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
3
Appeal 2016-004917
Application 12/984,298
(RP) in Popovich, such as router 267 in repeater site 204, takes over from a
zone controller in the master site to provide multicast services to subscribers
in the first localized site, and (2) a multicast address is assigned for calls
originating in the first localized site, and those calls are routed, via the
localized site, according to a multicast protocol. Final Act. 4—7. Although
the Examiner acknowledges that Popovich does not assign dense-mode
multicast addresses and route the calls according to a dense-mode multicast
protocol, the Examiner cites Korns for teaching this feature in concluding
that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 7—8.
Appellants argue that Popovich does not disclose a localized site
disconnected from a master site, let alone a local controller that takes over
from a zone controller in a master site to provide multicast services and
assign multicast addresses as claimed. App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 4—5.
Appellants further contend that Popovich not only lacks a local controller
that assigns a multicast address responsive to a detected loss of connectivity
to the master site, but also the cited references fail to teach the alternative
use of sparse-mode and dense-mode multicast protocols as a function of
connectivity state to a master site as claimed. App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 6—
10. Appellants add that because Popovich lacks dense-mode multicast
routing, there is no reason to add such routing to Popovich as the Examiner
proposes, and doing so would render Popovich’s system unsuitable for its
intended purpose. App. Br. 10-11.
ISSUES
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Popovich and Korns collectively would have taught or suggested
4
Appeal 2016-004917
Application 12/984,298
(1) assigning sparse-mode multicast addresses and routing multicast calls
according to a sparse-mode multicast protocol before losing connectivity to
a master site, and (2) assigning, by a local controller, a dense-mode multicast
address for multicast calls and routing the calls according to a dense-mode
multicast protocol responsive to a detected loss of connectivity to the master
site, as claimed?
II. Is the Examiner’s proposed combination supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6, and 13
As noted previously, the Examiner maps (1) the recited master site to
Popovich’s core site 221, and (2) the recited localized sites to Popovich’s
repeater sites 204, 205. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3—A. As the Examiner explains,
when a router in the core site (i.e., a primary RP) is detected as unavailable,
packets are then sent to a secondary RP (e.g., router 267 in repeater site 204)
that forwards the packets to members of a talk group using a secondary
multicast tree. Ans. 4 (citing Popovich 125).
First, despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 6), we
see no reason why Popovich’s repeater sites 204, 205 cannot be considered
“localized” sites as claimed. See Ans. 5 (referring to these sites as “local”
sites). Notably, Appellants’ Specification does not define the term
“localized” or “local” unlike other terms whose definitions leave no doubt as
to their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. 142 (defining, among other terms, “a,”
“an,” “approximately,” “about,” “coupled,” etc.). We, therefore, construe
5
Appeal 2016-004917
Application 12/984,298
“local” with its plain meaning, namely “[ajnything in a given place, area,
enclosure, or environment, as opposed to that outside.” Steven M. Kaplan,
Wiley Electrical & Electronics Engineering Dictionary 429 (2004).
In light of this definition, Popovich’s repeater sites reasonably constitute
“localized sites” given their placement in a particular zone, as well as their
constituent internal elements, including routers, and the sites’ ability to
communicate wirelessly with devices 375 to 379 as shown in Figure 2.
But we cannot say—nor has the Examiner shown—that these
localized sites are disconnected from the master site (i.e., core site 221 under
the Examiner’s mapping) such that this loss of connectivity to the master
site is detected to perform the recited assignment and routing functions
responsive to that loss. This loss of connectivity is shown in Figure 3 of the
present application, where logical links 350 are all broken—a disconnection
effectively isolating the master site from the other sites. See Spec. 129.
But as Appellants indicate (App. Br. 5—6; Reply Br. 4), Popovich’s
core (master) site remains connected to the repeater sites even after a
primary RP (e.g., router 229) located in the core site fails. To be sure,
connectivity can be lost with an element within the core site 221, including a
router in that site that can be designated as a primary RP. See Popovich 125
(noting that the primary RP’s availability can be interrupted); see also id.
131 (including routers 228 and 229 as possible primary RPs selected by a
zone controller). But there is no detected loss of connectivity to the master
site such that a local controller takes over from that site’s zone controller as
claimed.
For this reason alone, we find the Examiner’s reliance on Popovich
problematic in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the
6
Appeal 2016-004917
Application 12/984,298
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and dependent claims 6
and 13 for similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our
reversing the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these claims, we need not
address Appellants’ other associated arguments.
Claim 14
We will, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 14 reciting, in pertinent part, (1) segmenting multicast groups into
wide-area and local domains using sparse-mode and dense-mode multicast
protocols, respectively, and (2) assigning multicast addresses such that in
normal operation, wide-area scope sparse-mode multicast protocols are
assigned to groups and, responsive to detecting a failure mode operation,
local scope multicast addresses are assigned to the multicast groups. Final
Act. 11-14.
Despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 11—15; Reply
Br. 11—12), we see no error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding the recited segmentation and assignment. Final Act. 11—14; Ans.
7—10. As shown in steps 306 and 308 of Popovich’s Figure 3, primary and
secondary multicast addresses in various ranges are assigned at the start of
each call, and a zone controller selects routers as primary and secondary RPs
which can include core and repeater site routers. Popovich || 26—28, 30-33.
Multicast routing trees are then established in step 310 using the primary RP
as a root using any of the available IP multicast routing protocols such as,
for example, sparse-mode protocols. Id. 135. Call traffic is then
transported over the primary multicast trees in step 312. Id.
7
Appeal 2016-004917
Application 12/984,298
But if the primary RP is detected as unavailable, secondary multicast
routing trees are established using the secondary RP as a root using any of
the available IP multicast routing protocols such as, for example, sparse­
mode protocols, and call traffic is transported accordingly. Id. 136; Fig. 3
(steps 314—322).
Given this functionality, Popovich at least suggests segmenting
multicast groups into wide-area and local domains, and assigning sparse­
mode multicast addresses to groups during normal operation, and routing
calls via a sparse-mode multicast protocol.
Nor do we see error in the Examiner’s finding that Popovich’s
functionality associated with establishing multicast trees using distributed
secondary multicast addresses at least suggests assigning a multicast address
and routing calls according to a multicast protocol via a localized site
responsive to detecting a failure mode operation of the communication
system. Final Act. 13—14; Ans. 7—8.
Notably, Appellants’ Specification does not define the term
“assigning” unlike other terms whose definitions leave no doubt as to their
meaning. See, e.g., Spec. 142 (defining various terms). We, therefore,
construe “assign” with its plain meaning which is defined, in pertinent part,
as “to give out as a task; allot.” Webster’s New World Dictionary of
American English 82 (3d College ed. 1993).
Given this definition, nothing in the claim precludes distributing
secondary multicast addresses and using those distributed addresses to
establish multicast trees in steps 318 and 320 of Popovich’s Figure 2 as
“assigning” those addresses, for they are effectively allotted to establish
multicast trees responsive to detected unavailability of the primary RP.
8
Appeal 2016-004917
Application 12/984,298
To be sure, Popovich assigns primary and secondary multicast
addresses at the start of each call in steps 306 and 308 and, therefore, this
assignment is not responsive to a detected failure mode operation as
claimed. But despite Popovich’s nomenclature, nothing in the claim
precludes a different form of assignment responsive to losing connectivity,
namely distributing secondary multicast addresses and using those
distributed addresses to establish multicast trees in steps 318 and 320.
Appellants’ arguments in this regard (App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 11—12),
then, are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Also, despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 13—15),
we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Korns at least to the extent that
dense-mode multicast protocols are known in the art, and their use would
have been at least an obvious variation in lieu of, or in addition to, sparse­
mode protocols. See Final Act. 13—14; Ans. 9-10.
Korns explains that one of the underlying choices faced by Internet
Protocol (IP) multicast communications systems is which IP multicast
routing protocol to use: (1) sparse mode or (2) dense mode. Korns, col. 1,11.
52—56. Notably, sparse mode has advantages in that it uses bandwidth
economically and scales well for wide-area systems, unlike dense mode
which wastes bandwidth and has problematic scalability. Id. at col. 1,1. 57 —
col. 2,1. 4. But dense mode has advantages over sparse mode including
improved join latency and decreased end-to-end delay and, therefore, is an
“attractive alternative.” Id. at col. 2,11. 4—10.
Given these relative advantages and disadvantages of sparse and
dense mode protocols, and the fact that there are a finite number of
identified predictable solutions with respect to selecting a given multicast
9
Appeal 2016-004917
Application 12/984,298
routing protocol, namely two, using a dense mode protocol in addition to a
sparse mode protocol in Popovich as the Examiner proposes would have
been at least an obvious variation within the level of ordinarily skilled
artisans. See Final Act. 7—8; Ans. 6—7. Where, as here, there are a finite
number of known identified, predictable solutions (e.g., sparse or dense
mode routing protocols), ordinarily skilled artisans would have had a good
reason to pursue the known options within their grasp, including using dense
mode protocols in lieu of, or in addition to, sparse-mode protocols. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). That Popovich teaches,
quite broadly, that routing trees can be established in steps 310 and 320
using any of the available IP multicast protocols, such as, for example,
sparse mode protocols in paragraphs 35 and 36 only further bolsters the
notion that Popovich is not limited to sparse mode protocols given this broad
and exemplary language.
Although dense mode protocols have disadvantages compared to
sparse mode protocols, these disadvantages may well be outweighed by the
advantages of using dense mode protocols as noted previously. Such
considerations amount to an engineering trade-off well within the level of
ordinarily skilled artisans. Moreover, Appellants’ contention that using
dense mode protocols in Popovich would render Popovich’s system
unsuitable for its intended purpose of maintaining an uninterrupted site-wide
multicast call across wide-area networks (App. Br. 13—15) is unsubstantiated
by any persuasive evidence on this record and is, therefore, unavailing as
mere attorney argument. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997); see also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”).
10
Appeal 2016-004917
Application 12/984,298
We reach the same conclusion regarding Appellants’ contentions that
distinguish sparse mode protocols (which are said to use shared trees) from
dense mode protocols that do not. Reply Br. 8—10, 12. Here again, these
arguments are uncorroborated by any persuasive evidence on this record,
and, therefore, have little probative value.
On this record, then, we find the Examiner’s proposed combination of
references is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
Lastly, Appellants’ contention that neither Popovich nor Korns
segments multicast address ranges based on sparse- or dense-mode
addresses (App. Br. 15) is not commensurate with the scope of claim 14
which recites no such range-based segmentation.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 14.
THE OTHER REJECTIONS
We do not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7,
15—18, and 22. Because claim 7 depends from independent claim 1, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 7 for reasons similar to those indicated for
claim 1. Also, because independent claim 15 recites limitations directed to a
loss of connectivity to the master site commensurate with those recited in
claim l,2 we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claim
15 and its dependent claims 16—18 and 22 for similar reasons. Nor has the
Examiner shown that the additional cited references cure those deficiencies.
2 Notably, the recited detected loss of connectivity to the master site is much
narrower than detecting a failure mode operation of the communication
system recited in claim 14.
11
Appeal 2016-004917
Application 12/984,298
CONCLUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 14, but erred
in rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, 13, 15—18, and 22.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, 13—18, and 22 is
affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12