Ex Parte Grover et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 23, 2012

10620302 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WAYNE D. GROVER and GANXIANG SHEN
____________

Appeal 2010-004832
Application 10/620,302
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004832
Application 10/620,302

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-28, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention is directed to protecting flow through
telecommunications networks against node loss (see Spec. ¶¶ [05] – [06]).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A telecommunications network, comprising:
plural nodes connected by plural spans and arranged to
form a mesh network;
at least one pre-configured cycle of spare capacity being
established in the mesh network, the pre-configured cycle
including plural nodes of the mesh network and being pre-
configured prior to any span or node failure; and
the plural nodes of the pre-configured cycle being
configured to protect at least one path segment, where the path
segment includes at least two intersecting nodes within the pre-
configured cycle and at least one intermediate node in a path
that includes the two intersecting nodes and straddles the pre-
configured cycle, the intermediate node not being a part of the
pre-configured cycle and the pre-configured cycle providing
two restoration paths to protect against a failure of a span
straddling the pre-configured cycle and one restoration path for
a failure of a span on the pre-configured cycle.

Appeal 2010-004832
Application 10/620,302

3
The Rejection at issue
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ellinas (US 6,760,302 B1).
1

Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as
obvious over Ellinas because the reference does not teach or suggest
providing paths to protect against a failure of a span that straddles a
protected cycle, as recited in claim 1 (Br. 16). Appellants specifically assert
that Figure 4 of Ellinas shows establishing multiple protection cycles, such
as the cycle between fibers 409, 411, 413, and 431, to protect link failure
407 instead of protecting the working data path between nodes 101 and 105
(Br. 16-17). Additionally, Appellants contend that, instead of “re-
configuring the nodes in the protection cycle to protect such a path
segment,” Ellinas protects the other nodes and links that are not protected by
the protection cycle by providing additional cycles to all nodes (Br. 17-18).

ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over
Ellinas because the reference does not teach or suggest providing paths to
protect against a failure of a span that straddles a protected cycle whereas
“the path segment includes at least two intersecting nodes within the pre-
configured cycle and at least one intermediate node in a path that includes
the two intersecting nodes and straddles the pre-configured cycle, the

1
Separate patentability is not specifically argued for the remaining claims
rejected over Ellinas in combination with other references since Appellants
merely contend that the other applied references fail to provide the missing
disclosure of Ellinas (see Br. 18-23).
Appeal 2010-004832
Application 10/620,302

4
intermediate node not being a part of the pre-configured cycle,” as recited in
claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
We specifically find that the Examiner has properly relied on Figures
1A and 4 of Ellinas to show that the same nodes within the network nodes
101, 103, 107, 109, 111, and 113 are connected by protection fibers shown
by dotted lines (Ans. 18-19). We disagree with Appellants that Ellinas
cannot protect against the failure of a span straddling the cycle (Br. 16)
because the pre-configured cycle including plural nodes of the network mesh
protect the path segment through nodes 101, 105, and 111 (see Ans. 19).
Similarly, as explained by the Examiner (id.), the working data path between
nodes 101 and 111 straddles the protection cycle, which does not include the
intermediate node 105.
Additionally, we find that the Examiner’s discussion of Figures 1A
and 4 of Ellinas provides support for the disputed claim feature of “pre-
configured cycle being configured to protect at least one path segment” (see
Br. 17). We further disagree with Appellants that the claimed subject matter
is not taught or suggested by Ellinas because the reference’s approach
Appeal 2010-004832
Application 10/620,302

5
requires a greater redundancy and cost (Br. 18). While efficiency and cost
considerations may be desirable, such requirements are not recited in the
claims. In other words, even if a larger number of nodes are included in the
protection cycle, the reference teaches or suggests protecting a path segment
which includes at least two intersecting nodes within the pre-configured
cycle by “providing two restoration paths to protect against a failure of a
span straddling the pre-configured cycle and one restoration path for a
failure of a span on the pre-configured cycle,” as recited in claim 1. As
such, we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion that the Ellinas would have
suggested the disputed claimed limitations to one of ordinary skill in the art.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious, nor
of claims 2-28 falling therewith.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-28 is affirmed.
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)(v).

AFFIRMED

ELD