Ex Parte Ni

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 11, 2012

09982794 (B.P.A.I. May. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte SHIH-HSIUNG NI
_____________

Appeal 2010-000571
Application 09/982,794
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and JUSTIN T.
ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000571
Application 09/982,794
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 13.
We reverse.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a network device to prevent misalignment
of data containing extra header bytes. See pages 5 and 6 of Appellant’s
Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
1. A network device configured to prevent data
misalignment of a data packet containing extra header bytes, the
network device comprising:

an ingress module having an input interface to receive a data
packet comprising a plurality of cells, wherein a header cell of the
data packet is one of the plurality of cells of the data packet, wherein
the header cell of the plurality of cells comprises a header and packet
data information and wherein the header cell includes the header in its
entirety for the data packet;

a header detector configured to detect the header cell of the
data packet and remove the header from the header cell of the data
packet;

a counter configured to determine whether the header cell of
the data packet contains a multiple of a predetermined number of
bytes after the header has been removed from the header cell;

an insertion module configured to insert null bytes into the
header cell of the data packet to form a modified header cell of the
data packet if the counter determines that the header cell of the data
packet does not satisfy the multiple of the predetermined number of
bytes in order to align all of a plurality of other cells of the packet;
and
Appeal 2010-000571
Application 09/982,794
3

an extraction module configured to remove the null bytes from
the modified header cell of the data packet as a modified cell of the
data packet exits the network device.

REFERENCES

Scott US 6,512,773 B1 Jan. 28, 2003
(filed Dec. 30, 1998)
Yik US 6,697,873 B1 Feb. 24, 2004
(filed Aug. 22, 2000)
Parruck US 7,139,271 B1 Nov. 21, 2006
(filed Oct. 12, 2001)
Thompson EP 0572145 A3 Dec. 1, 1993

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
second paragraph as being indefinite. Answer 3-41.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 6 through 8, and 10
through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson in
view of Scott and Parruck. Answer 5-9.
The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Thompson in view of Scott and Parruck and
Yik. Answer 9-10.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
May 7, 2009.
Appeal 2010-000571
Application 09/982,794
4

ISSUES
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Appellant argues on pages 4 and 5 of the Reply Brief2 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 13 is in error. Appellant’s
arguments present us with the issue did the Examiner err in finding that
claims 1 through 13 are indefinite?

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues on pages 13 through 21 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 13 is in error.3 Appellant’s
arguments present us with the issue did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of references teaches a counter to determine whether the header
cell of the data packet contains a multiple of a predetermined number of
bytes after the header has been removed from the header cell?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. We concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding that claims 1 through 13 are indefinite and that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of references teaches a counter to determine
whether the header cell of the data packet contains a multiple of a

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief dated
February 10, 2009 and Reply Brief dated July 7, 2009.
3 We note Appellant’s arguments present additional issues but we do not
reach them as this issue is dispositive of the Appeal.
Appeal 2010-000571
Application 09/982,794
5

predetermined number of bytes after the header has been removed from the
header cell.
We concur with Appellant’s explanation on page 4 of the Reply Brief
as to why claims 1 through 13 are definite.
With respect to the obviousness rejection, the Examiner relies upon
Scott as teaching the counter. Answer 6-7, 15-16. We concur with the
Examiner that Scott teaches a counter that counts the bytes in the cell,
excluding the bytes in the header. However, this teaching does not meet the
claims. Each of independent claims 1, 6, and 10 recites removal of a header
and then counting after the header has been removed. Thus, the claims
recite that there is an order of removing the header then counting. We
concur with Appellant’s argument, on page 7 of the Reply Brief, that Scott
does not teach removal of headers prior to counting. Thus, we are persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection and we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 13 is
reversed.

REVERSED

tj