Ex Parte MORRIS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14516985 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/516,985 10/17/2014 Todd MORRIS
22474 7590 09/27/2018
Clements Bernard Walker PLLC
4500 Cameron Valley Parkway
Suite 350
Charlotte, NC 28211
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.
10.2237 9771
EXAMINER
CORS, NATHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
patlaw@worldpatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TODD MORRIS, ROMUALDAS ARMOLA VICIUS,
and PET AR DJUKIC
Appeal2018-001760
Application 14/516,985
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 4---6, 8-16, and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Ciena Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001760
Application 14/516,985
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to optical and packet path computation and
selection systems and methods. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for path computation in a network
implemented via a controller communicatively coupled to the
network, the method comprising:
determining dynamic link weights for links in the
network, responsive to a request for a path, for a connection,
between a source node and a destination node in the network
with a requested bandwidth amount, wherein the dynamic link
weights, for each link, are based on static link weights that are
modified with a penalty added therein based on a current status
of the link and a future status of the link determined at run-time
based on one or more of known future demand, forecast
demand, and known future network upgrades;
determining one or more paths for the request based on
the dynamic link weights; and
selecting a path of the one or more paths to minimize cost
in the network.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 second paragraph as being indefinite.
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 first paragraph as failing to comply with enablement.
2
Appeal2018-001760
Application 14/516,985
OPINION
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description
requirement
The Examiner asserts that the claimed term "future status" is not
defined in the original Specification and thus, under the plain meaning of the
term, "future" means actual future (i.e., 100 % certainty), which is not
reflected by the disclosed terms "forecasted," "planned," "allocated,"
"estimated," and "committed." See Ans. 8-9.
The claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable meaning in
their ordinary usage as such claim terms would be understood by one skilled
in the art by way of definitions and the written description. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants explain, and we agree,
that those skilled in the art in network planning would understand what these
three different sets are (by their plain and ordinary meaning):
1. known future demand ( connections that are planned with 100%
certainty in the future at run time, but not active currently),
2. forecast demand ( estimate of future connections at run time), and
3. known future network upgrades (planned changes in the future of
capacity of the network with 100% certainty at run time, but not
currently active).
Reply Br. 2.
We further agree with Appellants that those skilled in the art would
clearly recognize what each of these is, and this data is readily ascertainable
when a path computation executes (run-time). Id. In other words,
Appellants determine future status at run-time to modify link weights for the
3
Appeal2018-001760
Application 14/516,985
path computation. Id. We agree with Appellants that the future status is not
exact, but a determination made at execution ( run time) based on the known
future demand, forecast demand, and known future network upgrade and
each corresponds to a bandwidth value on each link. Id. In other words,
Appellants' invention is determining a future status when the path
computation occurs based on these three sets of readily ascertainable data.
Id.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 first paragraph as failing to comply with enablement
The Examiner further asserts that even if the "future" status had been
amended to be only "forecasted/predicted/etc." status, the Specification still
does not detail how to base the claimed dynamic link weights. Ans. 10.
According to the Examiner, inputting current "static" and "dynamic" (i.e.,
P(u) based) weight information, and "current end-to-end traffic," does not
account how P(u) accounts for future utilization. Id.
Appellants respond:
The penalty function may have as an input current network
status, predicted network status, existing network connections,
predicted network connections, committed future bandwidth,
current network capacity, and future network capacity. A
combination of these values may be used to determine a
representative link utilization to use for dynamic link weights
( e.g. weighted sum). Given a static weight Ws the dynamic
weight is calculated with Wd = P * Ws. For example, a penalty
function, for a link, can include: Given a static weight Ws the
dynamic weight is calculated with Wd = P * Ws. For example, a
penalty function, for a link, can include:
P(u) =Jiu, u > 0
4
Appeal2018-001760
Application 14/516,985
Simply put, Applicant increases link weight when the utilization
is higher, and the utilization is based on the current and future
status.
In detail, the predicted network connections, committed future
bandwidth, current network capacity, and future network
capacity (future status) is used for dynamic link weights - Wd =
P * Ws. The dynamic link weights are computed based on
multiplying the static link weights by the penalty function. The
penalty function is simply I divided by the utilization ( current
status + future status) and serves to increase the link weight when
utilization is high.
Examiner states the detail is still missing such as how u is
obtained from a weighted sum. Those skilled in the art recognize
a weighted sum is simply a combination of the known future
demand, forecast demand, and known future network upgrades
with different weights ( or the same weights) to each. The
variable "u" is merely the utilization on the link - the sum of
the current status and the future status with weights. That is,
utilization is the bandwidth on the link which is a combination of
the current status and future status.
Reply Br. 3 ( quoting Spec. ,r 51 ).
We agree with Appellants that one skilled in the art would understand
how P(u) accounts for future utilization.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 second paragraph as being indefinite.
We further agree with Appellants that contrary to the Examiner's
assertions (Ans. 11-12), the term "minimize cost" is not a relative term.
Reply Br. 4. Appellants are using link weights for path costs, so the
minimum path is the path with the lowest link weights. Id. The term
"minimize cost" to those skilled in the art denotes how the one path for the
request is selected from multiple possible paths, each with associated
weights based on the current and future status. Id.
5
Appeal2018-001760
Application 14/516,985
We further agree with Appellants that "at run-time" is well known in
the art and not relative. Reply Br. 4. Appellants explain that, based on the
context of claim 1, "run time" is at the time of determining dynamic link
weights which are performed in response to a request. Id.
Finally, we further agree with Appellants that "sufficient" in the
context of claim 12 is not a relative term and "links without sufficient
capacity" are simply links that do not have enough capacity to support the
request. Id.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-16, and 18-20 are
reversed.
REVERSED
6