10285069 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2013)

Ex Parte Moriarty et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2013

10285069 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2013)

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. 10/285,069 10/31/2002 INV001Michael Moriarty 1-2-11 1819 7590 03/20/2013 Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP 1300 Post Road, Suite 205 Fairfield, CT 06430 EXAMINER HALIYUR, VENKATESH N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2476 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL MORIARTY, MICHAEL A. ROCHE, and LESLIE ZSOHAR ____________________ Appeal 2010-005143 Application 10/285,069 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005143 Application 10/285,069 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-9, 11-16, 18-26, and 28-30. Claims 10, 17, and 27 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Ans. 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A processor comprising: assembly circuitry configured to select an ATM virtual channel for an outgoing cell, the outgoing cell comprising at least a portion of a reassembled packet, the reassembled packet corresponding to a certain ATM virtual channel, the assembly circuitry configured to select the ATM virtual channel for the outgoing cell so that the selected ATM virtual channel can be different than the certain ATM virtual channel. Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 11-16, 18-26, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karlsson (US 2002/0146014 A1, Oct. 10, 2002) in view of Nakamura (US 6,782,035 B1, Aug. 24, 2004). Ans. 3-11. Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 13, 21, and 30 because (a) Karlsson “does not address the subject of selecting a virtual channel and does not disclose or suggest selecting a virtual channel for an outgoing cell that is different than the virtual channel Appeal 2010-005143 Application 10/285,069 3 of a reassembled packet, wherein the outgoing cell comprises at least a portion of the reassembled packet,” and (b) Nakamura does not “disclose or suggest, however, selecting a virtual channel for an outgoing cell that is different than the virtual channel of a reassembled packet, wherein the outgoing cell comprises at least a portion of the reassembled packet.” App Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-4 (emphasis omitted). Therefore, according to Appellants, Karlsson and Nakamura do not teach or suggest “the assembly circuitry configured to select the A TM virtual channel for the outgoing cell so that the selected ATM virtual channel can be different than the certain A TM virtual channel” as recited in claim 1. (Id.). In particular, Appellants contend that Karlsson and Nakamura do not teach that “packets associated with a virtual channel, as defined by the VPI/VCI entries, to be retransmitted through ATM cells having different virtual channels. Additionally, the CID of the reassembled CPS packets can be changed before the CPS packets are retransmitted.” App Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). 2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 20 and 25 because Karlsson and Nakamura do not teach or suggest “determin[ing] a second output destination identification” or “determining a second destination identification by using the first destination identification,” as recited in dependent claims 20 and 25, respectively. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 4-5. Appeal 2010-005143 Application 10/285,069 4 Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 13, 20, 21, 25, and 301 as being obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest the claim limitations at issue? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-16). However, we highlight and address specific findings for emphasis as follows. As to contention 1, we agree with the Examiner’s analysis (Ans. 12- 16) in response to Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 14-15) that Karlsson explicitly discloses an ATM switch with an assembly circuitry configured to select an ATM virtual channel for an outgoing cell by performing a VPI/VCI look up operation. Ans. 12 (citing Karlsson Fig. 3, ¶¶ 0012-0014, 0052-0057, 0067-0069, and 0090-0091). The Examiner also correctly points out that Nakamura explicitly discloses an ATM cell VPI/VCI identification using different VPI/VCI connection for AAL-2/AAL-5 connections. Ans. 13 (citing Nakamura, col 57, ll. 22-27, col 58, ll. 1-16). As to Appellants’ arguments relating to packets being retransmitted through ATM cells having different virtual channels, or the reassembled 1 Separate patentability is not argued for the remaining claims. Appeal 2010-005143 Application 10/285,069 5 packets being changed before the packets are retransmitted, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 does not recite “retransmitted” or changing the reassembled packets “before” the packets are retransmitted. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the combination of Karlsson and Nakamura does not teach or suggest the invention as recited in representative claim 1, and claims 13, 20, 21, 25, and 30, not separately argued. As to contention 2, we specifically agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16) that Karlsson explicitly discloses determining VP cross connect switching by performing VPI/VCI lookup operation for the connection between source and destination ports (Karlsson, ¶¶ 0090-0091). The Examiner also correctly points out that Karlsson explicitly discloses that by using the first destination identification, the second destination identification partially defines the outgoing ATM virtual channel and the outgoing ATM virtual channel is determined by using the second destination identification. Karlsson, ¶¶ 0057-0065. Therefore, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Karlsson and Nakamura does not teach or suggest the invention as recited in claims 20 and 25. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-9, 11-16, 18-26, and 28-30 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2010-005143 Application 10/285,069 6 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-9, 11-16, 18-26, 28-30 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)(iv). AFFIRMED 2 msc 2 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further prosecution of these claims, the Examiner should consider a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, since claims 1-6 and 9-12 are “single means” claims which recite “assembly circuitry configured to” perform numerous functions.