Ex Parte Douglas

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 9, 2010

10361592 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 9, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER PAUL DOUGLAS
____________

Appeal 2009-005944
Application 10/361,592
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: April 9, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOSEPH L. DIXON, and JEAN R. HOMERE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-10, 12-23, and 25-32. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-005944
Application 10/361,592

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to monitoring data flow to a router with
an interface that can receive media streams, and determining what part of the
interface capacity is consumed by the media streams. See generally
Abstract; Fig. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for monitoring data flow to a router having
an interface configured to have an interface capacity to receive
media streams, comprising:

identifying media streams directed to the interface;

determining whether a combined data flow rate of the
identified media streams exceeds a threshold, the threshold
being based on the interface capacity; and

determining what portion of the interface capacity is
consumed by the identified media streams.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Jones US 2002/0116556 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Klinker US 2003/0088529 A1 May 8, 2003
(filed Nov. 1, 2002)

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10, 12-23, and 25-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Klinker and Jones. Ans. 3-5.1

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 19,
2007 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 17, 2008.
Appeal 2009-005944
Application 10/361,592

3
CLAIM GROUPING
Appellant argues all appealed claims together as a group. See Br. 6-9.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of that group. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Klinker
discloses monitoring data flow to a router with an interface with every
recited step except for (1) basing the threshold on the interface capacity, and
(2) determining what part of that capacity is consumed by identified media
streams. Ans. 3. The Examiner, however, relies on Jones as teaching these
features in concluding the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 4, 6-8.
Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest
determining (1) whether a combined data flow rate of the identified media
streams exceeds a threshold based on interface capacity, and (2) what part of
the interface capacity is consumed by the identified media streams as
claimed. Br. 6-8. According to Appellant, Jones does not relate to
monitoring data flow to a router’s interface with a capacity to receive media
streams, let alone determine whether a combined data flow rate exceeds a
threshold based on this capacity as claimed. Br. 8.
Appellant adds that there would have been no reason to combine the
references as proposed since Klinker analyzes traffic flow volume and
performance based on usage, billing, and cost control data, whereas Jones
pertains to partial “fullness” indicators for linear flow-through FIFO buffers.
Br. 8.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:
Appeal 2009-005944
Application 10/361,592

4

ISSUES
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Klinker and Jones collectively would have taught or suggested
determining:
(a) whether a combined data flow rate of identified media streams
exceeds a threshold based on a router’s interface capacity, and
(b) what part of the interface capacity is consumed by the identified
media streams?
2. Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Klinker’s system analyzes traffic flow volume and performance by
incorporating usage, billing, and cost control data to yield an improved data
network controller. Klinker, Abstract.
2. Klinker’s flow control system 200 measures end-to-end data traffic
218 in terms of flow characteristics (e.g., performance, cost, bandwidth,
etc.). To this end, the flow control system includes a controller 202, usage
collector 204, and a “passive calibrator” 214 that monitors data traffic.
Klinker, ¶¶ 0066, 0069; Fig. 2.
3. Klinker’s flow control system also compares specific data traffic
flows to (1) determine whether a particular traffic flow meets one or more
rules of an associated flow “policy” (i.e., a set of one or more rules
associated with a particular data traffic flow related to a particular user), and
Appeal 2009-005944
Application 10/361,592

5
(2) take remedial action if rules or policies are violated. Klinker, ¶¶ 0071-
73; Fig. 2.
3. A rule can set, among other things, (1) the maximum load or
bandwidth usage associated with traffic flows through specific providers, or
(2) any other data flow characteristic that can influence measuring or
controlling data traffic. Klinker, ¶ 0072.
4. Usage collector 204 monitors usage characteristics defining a
network service provider’s data traffic capacity, costs, etc. Usage data
provided to the usage collector includes usage information and
characteristics from network elements, including routers. Klinker, ¶ 0083;
Fig. 2.
5. Usage refers to the data that represents instantaneous or near
instantaneous measurements (i.e., data volume) that define the load and
available capacity of each network service provider. Klinker, ¶ 0083.
6. Bandwidth is the total capacity of each path or path segment
available for traffic flow. Load is the amount of capacity a particular path
uses to carry data traffic (i.e., load/bandwidth). Klinker, ¶ 0083.
7. Maximum usage can be set as an absolute value in terms of Mb/s
(i.e., not to exceed available bandwidth). Klinker, ¶ 0155.
8. In one embodiment, passive calibrator 214 examines the traffic
stream in both directions and classifies each stream into flows. These flows
are classified according to latency, percentage of packets lost, and jitter, and
are used to characterize the associated paths’ performance, including flow
rates. Klinker, ¶ 0095.
9. The passive calibrator 303 in Figure 3 is associated with router 345
and includes a passive flow analyzer 330 that monitors current traffic flow
Appeal 2009-005944
Application 10/361,592

6
characteristics so that the controller can determine whether the current traffic
flow meets associated policy requirements. Klinker, ¶¶ 0099, 0107; Fig. 3.
10. Jones’ system monitors and indicates partial “fullness” levels of
FIFO pipelines. This partial “fullness” information facilitates efficient flow
of data through the FIFO by not only preventing data loss that can occur if
the data is delivered to a full FIFO, but also preventing reading data from an
empty FIFO. Jones, ¶¶ 0001, 0004.
11. Jones’ system in Figure 2 (1) detects when three of four FIFO
stages 60-4 through 60-7 are full, and (2) provides a partial fullness indicator
signal 66 indicating that the FIFO 52 is approximately half full in this
condition. Jones, ¶¶ 0033-36; Fig. 2.
12. The maximum input rate of data entering an empty FIFO 52 via
input port 62 is limited by the speed of the interface between the data
producer and the FIFO. Likewise, the maximum output rate of data
consumed via output port 64 is limited by the speed of the interface between
the data consumer and the FIFO. Jones, ¶ 0032; Fig. 2.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness can be based on a showing that there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed. KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007). Such a showing requires
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 418.

Appeal 2009-005944
Application 10/361,592

7
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1. First, although
Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the recited
determinations of claim 1, Appellant’s arguments are directed principally to
the Examiner’s reliance on Jones in this regard, and its combinability with
Klinker. See Br. 6-8. As such, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s reliance on Klinker for the particular limitations of claim 1 for
which it was cited. See Ans. 3-4, 6-8. Nor are we persuaded that the
Examiner erred in combining Jones with Klinker to arrive at the claimed
invention.
Klinker’s flow control system (1) measures end-to-end data traffic in
terms of flow characteristics (e.g., performance, cost, bandwidth, etc.), and
(2) determines whether a particular traffic flow meets one or more rules of
an associated flow “policy” (i.e., a set of one or more rules associated with a
particular data traffic flow related to a particular user). FF 2-3. To this end,
Klinker uses a “passive calibrator” associated with a router that monitors
current traffic flow characteristics which are used to characterize the
associated paths’ performance, including flow rates. FF 8-9 (emphasis
added).
Klinker’s “usage collector” also monitors usage characteristics
defining a network service provider’s data traffic capacity by utilizing data
obtained from various network elements, including routers. FF 4 (emphasis
added). Notably, this usage data is associated with measurements (i.e., data
volume) that define the load and available capacity.
Appeal 2009-005944
Application 10/361,592

8
Since these characteristics and acquired data can be based on data
volume, loading, bandwidth (i.e., the total capacity of each path or segment
available for traffic flow), etc. (FF 3-6) that is at least associated with
routers, and (2) maximum usage can be set to particular bandwidth
thresholds (FF 7), we find that Klinker alone would have at least suggested
the determinations based on router interface capacity recited in claim 1. We
reach this conclusion emphasizing that Klinker’s detecting when rules based
on such capacity-based characteristics (e.g., bandwidth) are violated (see FF
3-4) at least would have suggested exceeding a capacity-based threshold as
claimed.
Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
combining Jones with Klinker for teaching these features. Although Jones
pertains to a FIFO pipeline, Jones fundamentally teaches the desirability of
determining the extent of data “fullness” of such a pipeline, namely to
prevent data loss that can occur if the data is delivered to a full FIFO, but
also preventing reading data from an empty FIFO. FF 10. To this end,
Jones’ system provides a “partial fullness indicator” indicating that the FIFO
is approximately half full when three stages are full. FF 11.
This partial fullness indicator functionality would have at least
suggested the desirability of determining a particular component’s interface
capacity in terms of the amount of data that it can accommodate during
operation. See FF 10-11. And this functionality would have also suggested
determining what part of that capacity would be consumed by data
accommodated by that device, namely whether half that capacity was
reached. See id.
Appeal 2009-005944
Application 10/361,592

9
We therefore see no reason why skilled artisans could not have
applied this teaching to the various data-receiving components of Klinker,
including interfaces associated with routers in that system. See, e.g., FF 4, 9.
That Jones recognizes that the FIFO’s maximum input and output data rates
are limited by the speed of the respective input and output interfaces (FF 12)
only bolsters this conclusion. The Examiner’s reason to combine the
teachings of Jones with Klinker is therefore supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion. Ans. 4.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2-10, 12-23, and 25-32 which fall with
claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-10, 12-23, and 25-32
under § 103.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10, 12-23, and
25-32.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-005944
Application 10/361,592

10

msc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528