Ex Parte Nason et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2017

11674771 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2017)

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.
11/674,771 02/14/2007 Christopher James Nason 613 (P1461US00) 5089
40604 7590 07/20/2017
MITEL NETWORKS CORP. c/o MICHELLE WHITTINGTON
PERRY + CURRIER INC. (FOR MITEL)
1146 N ALMA SCHOOL ROAD
BLDB
MESA, AZ 85201
EXAMINER
PHUNG, LUAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2017 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):
iplegal@mitel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER JAMES WASON and ROBERT STAR
Appeal 2017-002842
Application 11/674,771
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—10, which are all the claims pending and rejected in
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
communication systems. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal 2017-002842
Application 11/674,771
1. A method for detecting an unavailable server in a network
including a plurality of IP devices, said method comprising:
providing said plurality of IP devices, each of said IP devices
being in communication with a central server;
a first one of said plurality of IP devices broadcasting a server
unavailable message simultaneously to all others of said plurality of
IP devices when communication between said first one of said
plurality of IP devices and said central server is interrupted;
one of said others of said plurality of IP devices performing a
verification process to confirm interruption of communication
between said central server and said plurality of IP devices; and
upon successful completion of said verification process, said
one of said others of said plurality of IP devices broadcasting a server
unavailability confirmation message and each of said IP devices
terminating communication with said central server and reconnecting
to a new central server following receipt of said server unavailability
confirmation message;
wherein upon unsuccessful completion of said verification
process, each of said IP devices resumes normal operation.
References and Rejections
Claims 1—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Alamineh (US 6,914,877 Bl; Jul. 5, 2005) (“Alam”),
Greenberg (US 6,970,451 Bl; Nov. 29, 2005), and Azuma (US 6,430,150
Bl; Aug. 6, 2002).
2
Appeal 2017-002842
Application 11/674,771
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Alam
teach “said one of said others of said plurality of IP devices broadcasting a
server unavailability confirmation message and each of said IP devices
terminating communication with said central server and reconnecting to a
new central server following receipt of said server unavailability
confirmation message,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphases
added).1 See App. Br. 12.
The Examiner maps the claimed “central server” to Alam’s node E of
Figure 3, and the claimed “plurality of IP devices” to Alam’s Nodes B, D, F,
H of Figure 3. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 3^4. In order to satisfy the claim
requirement, the Examiner specifically excludes nodes A, C, G, I from the
claimed “plurality of IP devices.” See Ans. 3^4.
The Examiner cites excerpts from Alam’s columns 3 and 4 for
teaching the above limitation, but does not specifically map the italicized
claim limitation. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 5—6. The cited Alam’s excerpts
state:
FIGS. 5 and 6 illustrate flooding. Assume that node I
discovers link IH to be defective. In response, node I transmits
a data packet, termed a Route Status Packet, RSP, to every node
connected to it. The RSP identifies its originator, contains a
checksum for error correction, and contains other data,
identified below. In this example, the only node connected is
node F, because the link to node H is defective. Thus, the RSP
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal 2017-002842
Application 11/674,771
is transmitted to node F, and no RSP is transmitted along link
IH, as indicated by the crosses.
Node F accepts the RSP, updates its status table, and
passes the RSP along to all nodes connected to node F, as
indicated in FIG. 6. Two possible options arise at this point:
node F may, or may not, return the RSP to node I, the
originator. Either option may be taken, depending upon how
much bandwidth of the network is desired to be consumed by
the flooding process.
These losses are handled by standard error-correction
procedures. For example, the transmitting node, say node H in
FIG. 3, informs the receiving node, node E, of the number, and
identity, of packets which will be received. If node E fails to
receive the expected packets, it requests re-transmission. The
re-transmission occurs after the node EH becomes repaired.
Alam 3:35-50; 4:36-A2.
As shown above and contrary to the Examiner’s unsupported
assertion (Ans. 5—6), the cited Alam excerpts describe (i) “node I
discovers link IH to be defective” and the associated actions, and (ii)
following a standard error-correction procedure to retransmit to node
E after repairing a failed link EH. The Examiner has not pointed to,
and we do not see, under the Examiner’s mapping, any disclosure of
“reconnecting to a new central server,” let alone “each of said IP
devices terminating communication with said central server and
reconnecting to a new central server following receipt of said server
unavailability confirmation message” (emphases added) in the cited
Alam excerpts.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
4
Appeal 2017-002842
Application 11/674,771
Independent claim 9 recites “the IP device being arranged to . . .
reconnect to a new server.” Claim 9. Therefore, for similar reasons, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2—8 and 10.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10.
REVERSED
5