Ex Parte Khan Alicherry et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2012

10722651 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

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.
10/722,651 11/26/2003 Mansoor Ali Khan Alicherry 6-3 7650
7590 05/31/2012
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
90 Forest Avenue
Locust Valley, NY 11560
EXAMINER
SILVER, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MANSOOR ALI KHAN ALICHERRY and
RANDEEP SINGH BHATIA
____________

Appeal 2010-001825
Application 10/722,651
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE L. BARRY, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001825
Application 10/722,651
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9, 14-21, 23-24, and 26-28.
The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
INVENTION
The following claim illustrates the invention on appeal.
1. A method of designing a line system, the method comprising
a computer performing the steps of:
obtaining a set of one or more demands for use in
computing the line system design, wherein the one or more
demands comprise one or more bandwidth requests;
representing the line system design as a graph in
accordance with a graph coloring operation wherein colors
represent bandwidths such that bandwidths are assigned and the
one or more demands are routed so as to attempt to achieve a
minimum total design cost; and
specifying a line system design based on the assigned
bandwidths and the routed demands.

REJECTION
Claims 1-7, 9, 14-21, 23, 24, and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Application Pub. 2004/0061701 A1
("Arquie").

DISCUSSION
Based on the dependencies of the claims, we will decide the appeal of
the rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 14-21, 23, 24, and 26-28 on the basis of
independent claims 1 and 15. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore,
the issue before us follows.
Did the Examiner err in finding that Arquie would have taught that a
computer performs the step of "representing the line system design as a
Appeal 2010-001825
Application 10/722,651
3
graph in accordance with a graph coloring operation wherein colors
represent bandwidths such that bandwidths are assigned and the one or
more demands are routed so as to attempt to achieve a minimum total design
cost," as required by independent claim 1 and similarly required by
independent claim 15? (Contested limitations emphasized.)
The Appellants make the following argument.
Arquie mentions nothing about colors representing bandwidths
such that bandwidths are assigned and the one or more demands
are routed so as to attempt to achieve a minimum total design
cost. Indeed, Arquie does not perform any assignment of
bandwidths, routing of demands, or design of a network (much
less minimization of a total design cost). Rather, Arquie is
directed to a technique in which a color-coded visualization
"allows network administrators to rapidly and effectively
identify which connections" are being inefficiently utilized in a
network. In the technique taught by Arquie, any assignment of
bandwidths, routing of demands, or minimization of a total
design cost would be performed by a network administrator
rather than by a computer, as recited in claim 1.
(Reply Br. 2.)
The Examiner makes the following findings.
[T]he limitation of assigning colors representing bandwidths are
disclosed by Arquie (PGPUB para 0013) . . . .
The minimization of costs is implied in PGPUB
paragraph 0060 of the reference, which states: "For example,
the use of utilization rate as the displayed performance
information for connections was selected because it allows
network administrators to rapidly and effectively identify which
connections (or switches or other components) are being
saturated or over utilized or are being underutilized."
(emphasis by Examiner[)].
(Ans. 7.)
Appeal 2010-001825
Application 10/722,651
4
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim, and that
anticipation is a fact question . . . ." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). (Emphasis added.)
Here, the Examiner's aforementioned findings address the assignment
of colors representing bandwidth and minimization of costs. These findings,
however, do not address whether Arquie would have taught "bandwidths are
assigned and the one or more demands are routed" by a computer as required
by independent claims 1 and 15.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that Arquie
would have taught that a computer performs the step of "representing the
line system design as a graph in accordance with a graph coloring operation
wherein colors represent bandwidths such that bandwidths are assigned and
the one or more demands are routed so as to attempt to achieve a minimum
total design cost," as required by independent claim 1 and similarly required
by independent claim 15. (Contested limitations emphasized.)

DECISION
We reverse the rejections of independent claims 1 and 15 and those of
claims 2-7, 9, 14, 16-21, 23, 24, and 26-28, which depend therefrom.

REVERSED

peb