Ex Parte Martin De Nicolas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

13133873 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/133,873 06/09/2011 Arturo Martin De Nicolas
96750 7590 06/29/2016
Patents on Demand, P,A,
4581 Weston Road, Suite 345
Weston, FL 33331
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P27687US2 6192
EXAMINER
DAVENPORT, MON CHERI S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docketing 1@patentsondemand.com
docketing3@patentsondemand.com
docketing.ericsson@thomsonreuters.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARTURO MARTIN DE NICOLAS, DIRK KAMPMANN,
and
JAN SCHEURICH
Appeal2015-000780
Application 13/133,873
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-17, 19-22, 24, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to communication between network nodes
using a grouping of circuits. See Title and Abstract of Appellants'
Appeal2015-000780
Application 13/133,873
Specification.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A method of communicating from a first node of a first
telecommunications network towards a second node of a second
telecommunications network, wherein the method is executed by
the first node, the method comprising:
assigning a circuit group identifier to at least one circuit
usable by the first node during communicating with the second
node, and
sending the circuit group identifier towards the second
node.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1-17, 19-22, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Phadnis et al. (US 2006/0209839 Al,
published Sep. 21, 2006). Final Action 2-8. 1
ISSUES
Claims 1, 2, 4--1 7, 19-22, 24, and 25
Appellants argue on pages 4--6 of the Appeal Brief and pages 1-3 of
the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is in
error. These arguments present us with the following issue:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding Phadnis teaches assigning a circuit
group identifier to at least one circuit usable by the first node
during communicating with the second node, as recited by
independent claim 1?
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated Apr. 28, 2014,
the Reply Brief dated Oct. 13, 2014, the Final Action mailed Oct. 3, 2013,
and the Examiner's Answer mailed Aug. 15, 2014.
2
Appeal2015-000780
Application 13/133,873
With respect to claims 2, 4--17, 19-22, 24, and 25, Appellants present
the same arguments providing us with the same issue as claim 1. App. Br. 4,
6.
Claim 3
Appellants argue on page 7 of the Appeal Brief and pages 3--4 of the
Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 3 is in error.
These arguments present us with the following issue:
b) Did the Examiner err in finding Phadnis teaches receiving an
acknowledgement that the group identifier has been stored by the
second node with respect to a circuit used during communicating?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. We disagree with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--17, 19-22, 24, and 25. However, we concur
with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3.
Claims 1, 2, 4--1 7, 19-22, 24, and 25
Regarding issue (a), the Examiner finds Phadnis's call reference
number identifies a circuit group usable during communication between an
edge router and a switch, thereby teaching a circuit group identifier assigned
to at least one circuit usable by a first node during communicating with a
second node as required in claim 1. Final Act. 2 (citing Phadnis i-f 55); Ans.
3, 4.
3
Appeal2015-000780
Application 13/133,873
We have reviewed the Examiner's findings and the cited teaching of
Phadnis, and we concur with the Examiner. Phadnis' s call reference number
provided by the edge router to the switch "uniquely identifies the group of
virtual circuits, and may be used to identify the group when sending
additional signaling messages." See Phadnis i-f 55. Thus, Phadnis's call
reference number is a group identifier for circuit(s) usable by a first node
(edge router) during communicating with a second node (switch). Final Act.
2, 8, 9; Ans. 4.
Appellants argue although Phadnis teaches the call reference number
assigned to a circuit, that circuit is not usable by the first node during
communication with the second node as required in claim 1. App. Br. 5, 6;
Reply Br. 2, 3. According to Appellants, Phadnis's circuit is not usable
during communication because:
at the time that Phadnis' s "call reference number" is sent, the
receiving edge router has no idea whether or not the virtual
circuit (and the supporting devices) identified by the "call
reference number" are actually even available. Thus, at this
point in time, Phadnis's "virtual circuit" (identified by the "call
reference number") is not "usable" for communication since the
edge router is not aware if resources are available for device
supporting the virtual circuit.
Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded that the claimed "circuit usable by the
first node during communicating" requires the node to know the circuit is
actually available when assigning the circuit identifier. Moreover,
Appellants have cited insufficient evidence to support the assertion that
Phadnis's circuit is unusable for communication because the edge router is
not aware of resource availability.
4
Appeal2015-000780
Application 13/133,873
As Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and independent claims 5, 16, and 21, for which
Appellants provide the same arguments. App. Br. 4, 6.
Appellants have not presented additional arguments with respect to
the rejections of dependent claims 2, 4, 6-15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 25.
App. Br. 4, 6. Accordingly, we similarly sustain the Examiner's rejection of
these claims.
Claim 3
Regarding issue (b ), the Examiner finds Phadnis' s edge router and
switch communication (via the call reference number and acceptance
response) teaches receiving an acknowledgement as required in claim 3.
Further the Examiner finds Phadnis' s updating of tables indicating a group
of circuits, teaches that a group identifier has been stored as claimed. Ans. 4
(citing Phadnis Fig. 2); Final Act. 3 (citing Phadnis i-f 55).
Appellants argue although Phadnis teaches an acceptance response
and updating tables to indicate a circuit group, Phadnis' s "updating of tables
fails to disclose, expressly or inherently, any sort of acknowledgement that
such group identifier has been stored." Reply Br. 4; see also App. Br. 7.
We agree with Appellants. Paragraph 55 of Phadnis teaches the acceptance
response indicates a circuit group is available, and Figure 2 teaches tables
indicate the circuit group is accepted. However, Phadnis' s acceptance
response is not an acknowledgement that the circuit group identifier has
been stored in the tables. The Examiner has not shown, nor have we found,
that Phadnis teaches receiving an acknowledgement that a circuit group
5
Appeal2015-000780
Application 13/133,873
identifier has been stored, as required in claim 3. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-2, 4--17, 19-22, 24,
and 25.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 3.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6