Ex Parte Netravali et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 13, 2012

10953551 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/953,551 09/30/2004 Arun Narayan Netravali 129250-002019/US 2255
32498 7590 08/14/2012
CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC
P.O. BOX 1995
VIENNA, VA 22183
EXAMINER
BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2012 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 ARUN NARAYAN NETRAVALI, KRISHAN KUMAR
SABNANI, and RAMESH VISWANATHAN
____________

Appeal 2010-004608
Application 10/953,551
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JEFFERY S. SMITH, and
BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004608
Application 10/953,551

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S. C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to reducing the number of routing paths
to be computed in a network using a hierarchical structure in which
designated nodal elements, each with its own associated cluster of nodal
elements, compute routing paths to other similarly situated nodal elements
outside their clusters. (Abstract).
Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method for generating a hierarchical structure for the Internet
comprising:

organizing one or more nodal elements within the Internet into at least
one cluster; and

designating one of the nodal elements as an element operable to
compute one or more routing paths to one or more other similarly designated
elements outside of the cluster.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by US 4,864,559; issued September 5, 1989 (Perlman).
Appeal 2010-004608
Application 10/953,551

3
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable
over Perlman in view of US 2005/0135256A1; published June 23, 2005
(Ball).

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Perlman discloses a method for generating a
hierarchical structure for the Internet and that column 6, lines 9-16 disclose
organizing one or more nodal elements into at least one cluster within the
Internet. (Ans. 3). The Examiner also finds that at column 6, lines 23-28
and at column 8, line 65 through column 9, line 9 and lines 34-38, Perlman
discloses designating one of the nodal elements as an element operable to
compute one or more routing paths to one or more other similarly designated
elements outside of the cluster. (Ans. 4).
Appellants contend that the claimed element operable to compute one
or more routing paths to one or more similarly designated elements outside
the cluster (i.e., a supernode) must be designated from a cluster of nodes of
the same level. (App. Br. 4, Reply Br. 2).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the claims are not limited to
selecting the node operable to compute routing paths from nodes of the same
level in the cluster?

Appeal 2010-004608
Application 10/953,551

4
ANALYSIS
Appellants group independent claims 1, 8, and 11 together and present
no separate arguments for the dependent claims. Therefore, we address
claim 1 as representative of this claim group.
Appellants broadly claim a method for generating a hierarchical
structure for the Internet which includes organizing nodal elements within
the Internet into a cluster and designating one of the elements as operable to
compute routing paths to similarly designated elements outside the cluster
(i.e., a supernode) (See Spec. ¶¶ [0013-0014]). The only limitation on
Appellants’ nodal elements recited in claim 1 is that they be “within the
Internet.” Nothing in claim 1 otherwise limits in any way the selection of
those nodal elements to be organized into a cluster.
Citing the Specification’s description of BGP speaker nodes,
Appellants argue that the Specification describes a “cluster” as consisting
only of those nodes that have the same level. (Reply Br. 2). We find no
such definition in the Specification, nor can limitations not explicit or
inherent in the language of the claims be imported from the Specification.
See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 3-4, 8), Perlman discloses a hierarchy
in which a network is divided into nodes designated as Level 1 nodes and
nodes designated as Level 2 nodes. Perlman specifically discloses that
Level 2 nodes may belong to one of the group of Level 1 nodes. (Col. 6, ll.
Appeal 2010-004608
Application 10/953,551

5
29-30). Level 1 nodes communicate with each other and Level 2 nodes
communicate with a group of Level 1 nodes and other Level 2 nodes. (Fig.
1; col. 6, ll. 9-29; col. 9, ll. 34-38). Thus, we see no error in the Examiner’s
finding that Perlman anticipates claim 1.
In their separate arguments concerning claim 6, Appellants contend
that the nodal elements of each claimed layer belong to the same level.
However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the language of claim
6 is limited only to nodal elements “within the Internet” and we find no such
definition of “layer” in the Specification. For the same reasons as those
outlined above, Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
finding claim 6 anticipated by Perlman.
Appellants argument responding to the rejection of claims 3 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) merely states that Ball does not make up for the
deficiencies of Perlman. Since Appellants have not demonstrated any such
deficiencies in the Examiner’s application of Perlman, we conclude that the
Examiner did not err in the rejections of claims 3 and 9.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding
claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-13 anticipated by Perlman and in finding claims 3
and 9 obvious over Perlman in view of Ball.

Appeal 2010-004608
Application 10/953,551

6
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Perlman is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) over
Perlman in view of Ball 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

rwk