Ex Parte Kashima et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2014

11327407 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte TSUYOSHI KASHIMA, VINH PHAN-VAN, and
TVLN SIVAKUMAR1
________________

Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOHNNY A. KUMAR and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The Real Party-in-Interest is Nokia Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407

2
SUMMARY

Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-21 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Masuda et al. (US
2001/0007560 A1, July 12, 2001) (“Masuda”), Han et al. (US 2004/0100903
A1, May 27, 2004) (“Han”), and Ise et al. (US 2003/0133411 A1, July 17,
2003) (“Ise”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a network component for
classifying at least one IP flow for efficient quality of service realization in a
network, wherein one embodiment of the network component includes a unit
for detecting at least one IP flow from at least one IP packet. Upon
detection of the at least one IP flow, the unit obtains predefined information
from the at least one IP packet to determine a quality of service requirement
that is associated with the at least one IP packet. The unit creates at least
one other IP flow by multiplexing a plurality of IP packets with the same
quality of service requirement into the other IP flow or demultiplexing the
plurality of IP packets with different quality of service requirements into
other IP flows, each of the other IP flows having a different quality of
service requirement. Abstract.

Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407

3
GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Appellants group claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-21 together. App.
Br. 39. We therefore select independent claim 1 as representative of this
group. Claim 1 recites:
1. An apparatus comprising:

a detecting unit configured to detect at least one traffic
flow from at least one packet;

an obtaining unit, upon detection of the at least one
traffic flow, configured to obtain predefined information from
the at least one packet to determine a quality of service
requirement that is associated with the at least one packet; and

a creating unit configured to generate at least one other
traffic flow between one or more mobile user equipments and a
gateway upon obtaining the predefined information, wherein a
plurality of packets with the same quality of service
requirement is multiplexed into the at least one other traffic
flow or the plurality of packets with different quality of service
requirements is demultiplexed into other traffic flows, each of
the other traffic flows having a different quality of service
requirement and an associated destination address.

App. Br. 58.
Appellants group claims 4, 11, and 18 together. App Br. 50. We
therefore select dependent claim 4 as representative of this group. Claim 4
recites:
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein upon creating at
least one other internet protocol flow, the creating unit is
configured to request a logical channel based on the quality of
service requirement related to the at least one other internet
protocol flow.

Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407

4
App. Br. 58.
Appellants group claims 5, 12, and 19 together. App Br. 53. We
therefore select dependent claim 5 as representative of this group. Claim 5
recites:
5. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the creating unit
is configured to place all internet protocol packets belonging to
the at least one other internet protocol flow in the logical
channel.

App. Br. 59.
ISSUES AND ANALYSES
A. Claim 1
Issue 1
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined
cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting:
[A] creating unit configured to generate at least one other traffic
flow between one or more mobile user equipments and a
gateway upon obtaining the predefined information, wherein a
plurality of packets with the same quality of service
requirement is multiplexed into the at least one other traffic
flow or the plurality of packets with different quality of service
requirements is demultiplexed into other traffic flows, each of
the other traffic flows having a different quality of service
requirement and an associated destination address.

App. Br. 39.

Analysis
Appellants contend that the Examiner mischaracterized the teachings
of Masuda. App. Br. 42. According to Appellants, Masuda is directed to a
multilayer class identifying communication apparatus used in an IP network
Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407

5
of a network layer of an OSI reference model. Id. (citing Masuda, ¶ [0002]).
Appellants argue that Masuda teaches a classifier 8a that classifies objects
into a common buffer 8c with an associated queue for each class. App. Br.
42 (citing Masuda, ¶¶ [0152]-[0153]). Appellants also argue that Masuda’s
system classifies objects and stores them into pre-existing object queues,
viz., the six (6) object queues allocated for the classes EF, AF1-AF4, and
BE, that are defined in a common buffer (8c). App. Br. 42. Appellants
assert Masuda does not describe that new queues (or flows) are generated or
created and, therefore, Masuda does not describe generating new queues or
flows upon detection of predefined information used to determine the quality
of service associated with transmitted packets, as required by claim 1. Id.
The Examiner responds that the language of claim 1 recites “generate
at least one other traffic flow …” however, Appellants contend the claim
language should be interpreted as requiring “generate new flows” which, the
Examiner finds, is not claimed subject matter. Ans. 30. The Examiner finds
that the meaning of the claim term “generate one other traffic flow” is
different from what Appellants argue because “one other flow” suggests
another or different flow which may or may not be new. Id.
The Examiner also finds Masuda teaches that a flow of “objects” or
“packets” of various types are received, representing a mix of packets of
different types which are not based on predefined information. Ans. 30.
The Examiner further finds that Masuda teaches that different flows, based
on predefined information, are formed or generated only after subjecting the
packets to a series of processes, including extracting predetermined data
from a packet header comprising type of service (“ToS”) identifiers and
converting ToS to Internet Protocol-Quality of Service (“IP-QoS”) code.
Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407

6
The Examiner finds that Masuda then teaches, based on the IP-QoS code,
“generating at least one other traffic flow”; examples of which comprise EF
flow (Expedited Forwarding), AF1-AF4 (levels 1-4 of Assured Forwarding),
and BE (“Best Effort”). Ans. 30-31 (citing Masuda, Figs. 1, 3, 10).
Therefore, finds the Examiner, Masuda teaches not only “generat[ing] at
least one other traffic flow … upon obtaining the predefined information,”
e.g., generating the “EF” flow out of the incoming mix of different types of
packets, but also “the plurality of packets with different quality of service
requirements is demultiplexed into other traffic flows,” i.e., demultiplexing
the incoming mix of packets into EF, AF1-AF4, and BE flows based on their
different QoS code. Ans. 31.
We agree with the Examiner that the claim language reciting
“generate at least one other traffic flow” does not necessarily require that the
other traffic flow be a newly-created one. Thus, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments.
Appellants’ Specification does not provide an explicit definition of the
claim term “flow.” However, when read in light of the Appellants’
Specification, we interpret the claim term “flow” to mean a temporal
sequence of transmitted IP packets. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Claims under examination before the
PTO are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification). We consequently read Masuda as teaching that a flow of
packets is received by Masuda’s invention and that:
[A] multi-layer class identifying communication apparatus,
includes an input interface connected to input communication
lines; a switch circuit; and an output interface connected to
output communication lines. The input interface comprises an
Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407

7
allocating section, which determines a class identifier indicative
of one of classes to which an IP packet belongs, from header
data of the IP packet received through one of the input
communication lines, and allocates an IP-QOS (Internet-
Protocol-Quality-of-Service) code to the IP packet. The switch
circuit selects one of the output communication lines based on a
destination address of the IP packet, such that the IP packet is
outputted from the output interface to the selected output
communication output interface.

Masuda, ¶ [0024]. Masuda also teaches:
The IP-QOS class scheduler 1m carries out queuing for each
class based on IP-QOS class codes contained in objects. The IP-
QOS class codes correspond with a plurality of delay classes
and a plurality of discard classes. An object stored in a queue
having a high delay priority is preferentially transmitted to the
transmission-side switch interface control section 1k. The IP-
QOS class scheduler 1m has a scheduling function based on the
Weighted Round Robin (WRR) system to control in such a
manner that a required service quality can be provided. In
addition, on the IP network, precise transmission control
including usage parameter control (UPC) and a shaping section
is carried out to a premium service class providing a virtual
dedicated line.

Masuda, ¶ [0074]. Masuda therefore teaches that each packet of an
incoming flow of packets is interrogated to determine the quality of service
characteristic of the packet and that successive packets are queued into
different queues, or channels, depending on their IP-QoS classification.
Such queuing by quality of service generates (multiplexed) different flows
of packets, i.e., flows composed entirely of packets with quality of service
codes that qualify for being queued in the EF, AF1-AF4, or BE queues,
respectively. These each queue necessarily represents different flows from
the original, mixed incoming flow. We therefore conclude the Examiner is
Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407

8
correct in finding Masuda teaches the limitation of claim 1 reciting
“generat[ing] at least one other traffic flow” and we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 on this ground.

Issue 2
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Masuda
cannot be combined with Han and Ise. App. Br. 46.

Analysis
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in concluding that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus
ofMasuda by adding Han’s mobile user equipment and adding Ise’s flow
association with QoS and destination address. According to Appellants,
Masuda teaches its apparatus includes an input interface connected to input
communication lines; a switch circuit; and an output interface connected to
output communication lines. App Br. 47 (citing Masuda, ¶ [0024]).
Therefore, argue Appellants, Masuda’s apparatus enables packet-based
traffic control and communications over communication lines and does not
disclose, suggest, or contemplate managing QoS traffic flow between mobile
user equipment and a gateway. App. Br. 47.
Appellants argue further that Han is directed to a quality of service
mechanism for mobile access devices in wireless communication with a
gateway for handling flow of data to or from a plurality of mobile nodes.
App. Br. 47 (citing Han, ¶ [0001]). Consequently, Appellants contend,
because Masuda is directed to packet-based communication over
communication lines whereas Han is directed to handling data flow to or
Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407

9
from a plurality of mobile nodes (i.e., Han is directed to wireless/mobile
implementations), a person skilled in the art would have no reason to
consider Han, which is directed to an entirely different technological area
than the technology pertaining to Masuda, for modifying Masuda with any
of Han’s teachings. App. Br. 47.
Appellants argue further that modifying Masuda so the modified
teachings would “provide a QoS mechanism for mobility access devices,”
would change Masuda’s principle of operation of managing packet flow
over communication lines (using an apparatus that includes an input
interface connected to input communication lines, a switch circuit, and an
output interface connected to output communication lines), thus rendering
Masuda unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br. 48.
The Examiner responds that Han was cited for teaching the subject
matter of “mobile user equipment” while Masuda was cited for teaching,
generally, “user equipment.” Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Masuda is silent
both with respect to user equipment being mobile, as well as to excluding
user equipment from being mobile. Id. Therefore, the Examiner finds,
modifying Masuda’s general user equipment with mobile user equipment is
not forbidden by Masuda. Id. The Examiner further asserts that, to achieve
the claimed system, all one skilled in the art would need to do is to replace
the wired interface of Masuda with a wireless or air interface between the
user equipment and the claimed apparatus performing the claimed
functionalities. Ans. 34.
The Examiner also finds that systems of handling traffic flows
between mobile user equipment and a gateway is taught by Han. Ans. 34.
Therefore, concludes the Examiner, because Masuda does not forbid or
Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407

10
teach away from the user equipment being mobile but does teach handling
traffic flows with respect to a gateway, and because Han teaches handling
traffic flows between mobile user equipment and a gateway, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of
Masuda by adding Han’s mobile user equipment. Id. The Examiner then
finds an artisan of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the
teachings of Masuda and Han to provide expanded and more user-specific
application to quality of service (“QoS”) mechanisms for mobility access
devices such that “the QoS guarantee is made on a per-user basis or a per-
mobile node basis” and to provide “individual QoS guarantees for individual
applications for each user.” Id. (citing Han, ¶ [0002] and quoting Han, ¶
[0052]).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. Masuda
teaches “an input interface connected to input communication lines.”
Masuda, ¶ [0024]. The Examiner has adduced Han to demonstrate it was
known in the prior art that a gateway is capable of “handling flow of data to
or from a plurality of mobile nodes” and an interface is capable of
“receiv[ing] information defining respective quality of service (QoS) levels
for a plurality of mobile nodes.” Han, Abstract. In an analysis of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is not necessary, Appellants’
arguments notwithstanding, that all of the elements of Masuda read on the
claimed invention. Rather, the proper test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000). We
therefore agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Masuda’s teaching
Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407

11
of an “input interface compris[ing] an allocating section which determines a
class identifier indicative of one of classes to which an IP packet belongs”
with Han’s teaching of an input interface receiving information from
defining respective QoS levels for a plurality of mobile nodes. Masuda,
Abstract; Han Abstract. Furthermore, the Examiner has also articulated a
motivation to combine the teachings of Masuda and Han that provides “a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We consequently affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 on this ground.

B. Claim 4
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding Masuda teaches
or suggests the limitation of claim 4 reciting “the creating unit is configured
to request a logical channel based on the quality of service requirement
related to the at least one other internet protocol flow.” App. Br. 50.

Analysis
Appellants repeat their argument submitted with respect to claim 1,
viz., that Masuda classifies objects and stores them into pre-existing queues,
but does not create or generate new queues. App. Br. 52. Because Masuda
does not create at least one flow, argue Appellants, Masuda also cannot
request a logical channel (based on the QoS relating to the new flow) upon
creating the new flow. Id.
Appellants also reject the Examiner’s finding that Masuda teaches a
logical channel is requested upon creating (or generating) a traffic flow,
Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407

12
because nothing in Masuda teaches that a new flow is created. App. Br. 53.
Moreover, Appellants argue, Masuda does not make any mention of a
“logical channel,” but teaches only that objects are classified and stored into
existing queues. Id.
We have related supra our reasoning with respect to why we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ claim 1 arguments and we incorporate them here.
With respect to the claim term “logical channels,” the Examiner finds that
Masuda teaches performing a “send_req [EF/AF1-AF4/BE],” meaning a
request to send packets to a specific queue based upon the value of the
quality of their IP-QoS. Ans. 37. The Examiner finds that since all such
packets/flows in Masuda are IP packets/flows, each requires a “logical
channel” specified by source and destination addresses. Id. (citing Masuda,
Fig. 9).
We agree with the Examiner. Masuda need not employ the exact
claim term “logical channel” if a corresponding structure or function can be
obviously discerned by a person or ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We find that the various queues
taught by Masuda (i.e., EF, AF1-AF4, and BE), each receiving packets
according to the packets’ QoS rating, and thus generating other flows,
correspond to the “logical channels” of Appellants’ claim 4. We
consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.

B. Claim 5
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art
references teach the limitation of claim 5 reciting “wherein the creating unit
Appeal 2012-003667
Application 11/327,407

13
is configured to place all internet protocol packets belonging to the at least
one other internet protocol flow in the logical channel.” App. Br. 54.

Analysis
Appellants argue that, in some embodiments of their claimed
invention, the creating unit places all IP packets belonging to the newly
created traffic flow into the corresponding logical channel. App. Br. 54.
Appellants again reprise their arguments with respect to claim 1, viz., that:
Masuda classifies objects and stores them into pre-existing
queues, but does not create or generate new queues. While the
objects placed into Masuda's queues may be IP packets,
Masuda does not create a new flow (upon obtaining predefined
information from a packet in an existing flow), and therefore
Masuda cannot and does not describe a logical channel
requested for such a newly created flow/queue.

App. Br. 55.
We have related supra our reasons as to why we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments and we incorporate them here. For these reasons, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.

DECISION
The Examiner’s non-final rejection of claims 1-21 as obvious under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
lp