Ex Parte Rittenhouse et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13011487 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/011,487 0112112011
76614 7590
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
09/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
George Endicott Rittenhouse
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.
ALC 3690 4746
EXAMINER
MAGLO, EMMANUEL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/0112016 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):
mail@krameramado.com
ipsnarocp@alcatel-lucent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGE ENDICOTT RITTENHOUSE,
GARY WELDON ATKINSON, OLIVER BLUME,
SURESH GOY AL, DANIEL CHARLES KILPER,
STEVEN KENNETH KOROTKY, and
DUSAN SUV AKOVIC
Appeal2015-003517
Application 13/011,487
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-5 and claims 12-18. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. App.
Br. 1.
2 The Examiner has stated that claims 6-11 are allowable. Ans. 7.
Appeal2015-003517
Application 13/011,487
Invention
The claims are directed to a method for analyzing network power
consumption by determining and summing power efficiencies of network
resources. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for analyzing power consumption of a
communication network, the method comprising:
defining, by a processor, at least one service which will
run on said network;
defining, by a processor, a plurality of resources
provisioned in said network;
defining, by a processor, with an equipment power
efficiency database, power efficiencies for each of said plurality
of resoitrces;
defining, by a processor, a network path for said at least
one service;
calculating, by a processor, a sum of the power efficiencies
for resources of the network path; and
outputting, by a processor, analysis results based upon said
sum to a display device.
Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tamaki
Granlund
US 2008/0127001 Al May 29, 2008
US 2009/0088108 Al Apr. 2, 2009
2
Appeal2015-003517
Application 13/011,487
Krishnaswamy US 7,623,785 B2
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Nov. 24, 2009
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 12-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Granlund and Tamaki. Non-Final Act. 3-7 (mailed
July 2, 2014).
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Granlund, Tamaki, and Krishnaswamy. Id. at 7-8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' argument that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Non-Final i~ .. ct. 2-8) and the findings and the reasons set
forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 7-9 (mailed Dec. 4, 2014)). We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight
specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows.
Independent Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Granlund teaches or
suggests "defining ... power efficiencies for each of said plurality of
resources" and "calculating ... a sum of the power efficiencies," as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants argue Granlund only
teaches "'total power consumption,"' and does not teach or suggest "power
efficiency" because "consumption may refer to a particular, absolute number
[but], efficiency must be a ratio." Reply Br. 2-3; App. Br. 4.
3
Appeal2015-003517
Application 13/011,487
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Granlund teaches
estimating/calculating the total power (energy) consumption of resources for
radio selection. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Granlund i-fi-128-30, 58); Ans. 8.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that "'the energy consumption of
the resources is the decisive factor on the basis of which a radio selection is
made"' in Granlund. Ans. 8 (citing Granlund i155). The Examiner
concludes that because energy consumption and energy efficiency are
"analogous," Granlund teaches or suggests analyzing energy efficiency to
determine resource selection. Id.
Appellants' argument, that consumption is an "absolute number," and
therefore does not teach or suggest efficiency because efficiency "must be a
ratio," (Reply Br. 2) does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. We agree
with the Examiner that energy consumption and energy efficiency are
"analogous" for purposes of optimizing resource usage. Ans. 8. Indeed,
Granlund teaches a ratio, i.e., energy efficiency, which compares the
"relation of the received power level to the transmitted power level."
Granlund i-fi-1 22-23. Based on that comparison, Granlund "select[ s] an
access network such that energy consumption (uplink transmit power) is
minimized" (id. i-f 24) to "optimize resource usage" (id. i-f 35). Because
Granlund teaches that energy efficiency is a consideration when optimizing
resource usage, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have
been obvious to determine and sum resource energy efficiencies to optimize
resource usage. Furthermore, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that
analyzing energy efficiency in this manner would have been "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an
unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
4
Appeal2015-003517
Application 13/011,487
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Granlund teaches or suggests
"defining ... power efficiencies for each of said plurality of resources" and
"calculating ... a sum of the power efficiencies," as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
Dependent Claim 13
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Tamaki teaches or
suggests "network efficiency," as recited in dependent claim 13. App. Br. 6;
Reply Br. 3. Specifically, Appellants argue "Tamaki is silent regarding
network efficiency." App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded because Appellants' arguments against Tamaki
(App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3) do not address the Examiner's conclusion that
Granlund teaches or suggests analyzing network power efficiencies (Non-
Final Act. 3 (citing Granlund i-f 28-30, 58, 66)), as discussed supra.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Granlund and Tamaki teaches or suggests "network
efficiency," as recited in claim 13. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claim 13.
Dependent Claim 17
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Granlund and Tamaki teaches or suggests "displaying the analysis results by
varying color," as recited in dependent claim 17. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4.
Specifically, Appellants argue "the references of record, alone or in
combination, fail to disclose, suggest, or teach this subject matter." App. Br.
7; Reply Br. 4.
5
Appeal2015-003517
Application 13/011,487
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Tamaki
teaches analysis results displayed on a screen. Non-Final Act. 6-7 (citing
Tamaki i-f 38, Fig. 4). Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's
conclusion (Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 9) that, when providing results on a
display, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, to
display the results in color. See App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Granlund and Tamaki teaches or suggests "displaying the analysis results by
varying color," as recited in claim 17. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claim 17.
Dependent Claim 18
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Granlund and Tamaki teaches or suggests "wherein each color corresponds
to a respective sub-network," as recited in dependent claim 18. App. Br. 8;
Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellants argue Takami teaches or suggests
transmitting, but "the claimed language refers to display of colors, not
transmission." App. Br. 8 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Tamaki teaches results displayed on a screen. Non-
Final Act. 7 (citing Tamaki i-f 38, Fig. 4). The Examiner concludes, and we
agree, it would have been obvious to use different colors for sub-networks
when displaying results. Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 9. Appellants' arguments,
discussing transmission (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4), do not address the
Examiner's conclusion that, when displaying analysis results for sub-
networks, it would have been obvious to display the results in color (Non-
Final Act. 7; Ans. 9). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
6
Appeal2015-003517
Application 13/011,487
in finding the combination of Granlund and Tamaki teaches or suggests
"wherein each color corresponds to a respective sub-network," as recited in
claim 18. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 18.
Remaining Claims 2-5, 12, and 14-16
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2-
5, 12, and 14--16 which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. App. Br.
9-10. For the reasons set forth above, therefore, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require applicants to articulate more substantive
arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.").
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-5, 12, and
14--16. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-5
and 12-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7