Ex Parte Eriksson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 17, 2012

12089173 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDERS ERIKSSON
____________

Appeal 2011-006155
Application 12/089,173
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006155
Application 12/089,173

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 30-64 (App. Br. 5). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The Invention
Exemplary independent claim 30 follows:
30. A method in an Internet Message-sending node for
transporting an Internet message over a connection to an
Internet Message-receiving node, wherein the Internet
Message-sending node performs the following acts:

determining a size of the Internet message;

comparing the size of the Internet message with a pre-
determined single-packet threshold;

performing a TCP Internet message-transport over said
connection, fi the size of the Internet message is larger than said
single-packet threshold; and

performing a single-packet Internet message-transport
over said connection, if the size of the Internet message is
smaller than said single-packet threshold.

The Examiner rejected claims 30-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Brown (U.S. 7,522,631 B1) (Ans. 4-6).

Appeal 2011-006155
Application 12/089,173

3
ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Brown discloses performing a
TCP Internet message-transport or a single-packet Internet message-
transport if the size of the message is larger or smaller respectively than a
threshold, as required by independent claims 30, 41 and 58?

ANALYSIS
In concluding that Brown anticipates claim 30, the Examiner found
that “Brown clearly shows the detailed process of transmitting packets using
TCP or UDP based on the size of the packets in columns 5 – column 9, line
19” (Ans. 7). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding is wrong
because in Brown, the size of the “information to be transported has no
bearing on the choice of UDP [a single packet transport] or TCP” (App. Br.
22). We find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Although the portions of
Brown cited by the Examiner mention TCP or UDP, they do not disclose
performing a TCP Internet message-transport or UDP if the size of the
message is larger or smaller respectively than a threshold (See Brown, cols.
5-9). Accordingly, for these reasons as expressed more fully by Appellant
(App. Br. 21-28), we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 30, 41, and 58 as well as dependent claims 31-40, 42-57 and 59-64 as
anticipated by Brown.

Appeal 2011-006155
Application 12/089,173

4
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 30-64 as
anticipated.

REVERSED

tkl