Ex Parte Rabie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

13289126 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/289, 126 11/04/2011
131442 7590 06/28/2016
RPX Clearinghouse, LLC
One Market Plaza, Steuart Tower
Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SamehRABIE
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.
48865-3001 4173
EXAMINER
HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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 SAMEH RABIE and OSAMA ABOUL MAGD
Appeal2015-001130
Application 13/289, 126
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
T , 1 , • 1mroaucnon
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ROCKSTAR
CONSORTIUM US LP. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-001130
Application 13/289, 126
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method of determining a forwarding treatment for an
Ethernet frame received at a node in a provider network
compnsmg:
determining, based on information in a header of the
Ethernet frame, a Class of Service Identifier to associate with the
Ethernet frame;
determining an identity of an Ethernet Virtual Connection
(EVC) to associate with the Ethernet frame;
selecting, based on the identity of the EVC, a service class
map from a plurality of service class maps, where each service
class map associates forwarding treatments with Classes of
Service; and
determining the forwarding treatment for the Ethernet
frame from the selected service class map based on the Class of
Service Identifier.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1---6, 8-16, and 18-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Baum (US 6,993,026; issued Jan. 31, 2006). (Final
Act. 3-16.)
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baum and Bess (US 2004/0006602 Al; published Jan. 8,
2004). (Final Act. 16-17.)
2
Appeal2015-001130
Application 13/289, 126
DISPOSITIVE ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Baum discloses "selecting, based on
the identity of the EVC, a service class map," as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 11 and 20?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Baum does not disclose "selecting, based on the
identity of the EVC, a service class map," as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claims 11and20. (Reply Br. 4, 10-11; see also App. Br. 10.)
Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner finds Baum's VPN-Index
discloses an Ethernet Virtual Connection (EVC) identity, but "[i]t is unclear,
in Baum, that the VPN-Index is" the basis for selecting a service class map.
(Reply Br. 3--4.)
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds
Baum's "Virtual Private Network Index represents the identity of an
[EVC]." (Ans. 15 (citing Baum Fig. 29) (emphasis omitted).) The
Examiner further finds Baum selects a service class map by "examin[ing]
bits of the context information" included in an Ethernet frame. (Id. at 15-16
(citing Baum Fig. 28).) The Examiner concludes Baum selects a service
class map based on a VPN-Index because "context information
correspond[s] to the VPN-Index column 2930" in Figure 29. (Id. at 15-16
(citing Baum 19:46--47).)
We find Baum's context information includes a VPN-Index, a Logical
Ingress Port, and Service Identifier information. (Baum 8:3-8, Fig. 13.)
While Baum teaches context information is examined to "determine[]
whether or not the [context information] bit( s) indicate a particular service
3
Appeal2015-001130
Application 13/289, 126
level" (Baum 25:54--57, 63---65), we find Baum does not disclose which
specific context information bits are examined to indicate service level; in
particular Baum does not disclose service level is based on examining the
VPN-Index bits of the context information (see Baum Fig. 28, 25:49--26:32).
That is, Baum teaches examining relevant context information to determine
service level, but Baum does not disclose that VPN-Index information is
context information relevant to service level. (See id.) Rather, VPN-Index
information is information used to identify source or destination VPN s
(Baum 15:66-16:6) and for port addressing (Baum 19:53-56). Thus, the
Examiner has not shown Baum discloses "selecting, based on the identity of
the EVC, a service class map," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claims 11 and 20. Accordingly, on this record, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner's§ 102 rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, and 26 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1;
claims 12-16, 18, 19, and 27 depend directly or indirectly from claim 11;
and claims 21-25 depend directly or indirectly from claim 20. The
Examiner relies on Baum to reject those claims under§ 102. (Final Act. 6-
16.) Thus, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's
§ 102 rejections of claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, 18, 19, and 21-27.
The additional reference, Bess, as applied by the Examiner in the
§ 103 rejections of dependent claims 7 and 17 (id. at 16-17) does not cure
the deficiency discussed supra. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner's decision to reject claims 7 and 17.
4
Appeal2015-001130
Application 13/289, 126
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-27 are
reversed.
REVERSED
5