Ex Parte Shew et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 22, 2012

10170701 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte STEPHEN D. SHEW, MALCOLM BETTS, and
ERNING E. YE
____________________

Appeal 2009-014125
Application 10/170,701
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and KALYAN K.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014125
Application 10/170,701

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-2, 4-7, 24-29, 31-32, and 42-44 , the only claims
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants invented a method of communication between call
controllers by amending call processing messages. Specification 1:4-6.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. In a connection-oriented network including a plurality of
interconnected call controllers, said plurality of interconnected
call controllers comprising at least one client call controller, at
least one intermediate call controller, and a destination call
controller, a method of optimally establishing multiple calls
between a source client call controller and a destination client
call controller comprising:
[1] receiving a call processing message by at least one of the
intermediate call controllers in the connection-oriented network
from the source client call controller, the call processing
message requesting establishment of a path for the call through
the connection-oriented network;
[2] calculating a path through the connection-oriented
network for the call, the path containing a series of links
through which the call is to be established;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jan. 5, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 3, 2009),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 3, 2009), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Nov. 29, 2007).
Appeal 2009-014125
Application 10/170,701

3
[3] amending the call processing message to include
encrypted network information resulting in an amended call
processing message, the encrypted network information
containing information related to the series of links associated
with the path through the connection-oriented network for the
call obtained during the step of calculating the path for the
requested call; and
[4] sending said amended call processing message to another
of said plurality of interconnected call controllers in the
connection-oriented network to enable the encrypted network
information containing path information for the call to be
communicated to the other call controller in such a way that the
path information for the call is only usable by the other call
controller if the other call controller is able to decrypt the
encrypted path information.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Nielsen US 2003/0074413 A1 Apr. 17, 2003

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 24-29, 31-32, and 42-44 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Nielsen.

ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-2, 4-7,
24-29, 31-32, and 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Nielsen turns on whether Nielsen describes (1) a “connection-oriented
network,” in which the method steps are performed by an “intermediate call
controller,” as per claim 1, and (3) “an input network interface adapted to
receive a call processing message . . . requesting establishment of a path for
the call through the connection-oriented network,” as per claim 2.
Appeal 2009-014125
Application 10/170,701

4

ANALYSIS
The Appellants first contend that Nielsen describes a packet network,
but fails to describe a “connection-oriented network.” App. Br. 7-9 and
Reply Br. 1-5. The Appellants specifically argue that Nielsen describes a
packet network that is well understood to be a connectionless network and
therefore the path taken through the network between various intermediaries
is not specified. App. Br. 7.
The Examiner interpreted “connection-oriented network” to
encompass computers communicating by means of a connection-oriented
protocol, i.e. a connection-oriented network of computers. Ans. 9. The
Examiner then found that Nielsen describes a packet network that uses either
a transmission control protocol (TCP), which is a connection-oriented
protocol, or a user datagram protocol (UDP), which is a connectionless
protocol. Ans. 9. As such, the Examiner found that Nielsen anticipates this
feature of claim 1. Ans. 4-5.
We agree with the Examiner. This issue turns on claim construction
and the meaning of the term “connection-oriented network.” During
examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the
Specification fails to give a definition for “connection-oriented network.”
While the Appellants point to portions of the Specification as providing a
definition (Reply Br. 2), the Specification merely provides a context for this
term and does not provide a specific meaning. Furthermore, the claims fail
to limit the scope of the meaning of this term. The Examiner interpreted
Appeal 2009-014125
Application 10/170,701

5
“connection-oriented network” to encompass computers communicating by
means of a connection-oriented protocol and the Appellants have not
provided any rationale or evidence to illustrate how this construction is
unreasonable or inconsistent with the Appellants’ Specification. The
Appellants have not further provided a meaning for “connection-oriented
network” that is distinguished from the Examiner’s. As such, we find that
the Examiner’s construction of a “connection-oriented network” to be both
reasonable and consistent with the Specification.
Nielsen describes systems that are connected using a TCP/IP
(transmission control protocol / internet protocol) stack. Nielsen ¶ 0008.
The stack consists of a plurality of layers, including (1) a bottom physical
layer that deals with communicating binary data by manipulating electrical
voltages, (2) a data link layer, which provides low level services, such as
error detection/correction and flow control, (3) a network layer, which
includes an Internet protocol (IP) layer, that is responsible for moving data
from one host to another and making all routing decisions, (4) a transport
layer, and (5) an application layer that supports applications, using protocols
such as hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) and simple mail transfer
protocol (SMTP). Nielsen ¶¶ 0008-0011. The transport layer includes two
protocols: (1) TCP, which is a connection-oriented service and (2) UDP,
which is a connectionless service. Nielsen ¶ 0010. Transportation layer
receives messages or data packets from an application layer. Nielsen
¶ 0010. The transportation layer is responsible for establishing a connection
between the sender and receiver. Nielsen ¶ 0011.
As such, Nielsen’s description of a transport layer that uses a
connection-oriented service above a network layer encompasses a
Appeal 2009-014125
Application 10/170,701

6
“connection-oriented network” under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
While Nielsen describes a packet network, Nielsen further describes the use
of a connection-oriented protocol such that a connection between the sender
and receiver is established. Therefore, we find the Appellants’ argument
that Nielsen fails to describe a “connection-oriented network” unpersuasive.
The Appellants also contend that Nielsen fails to describe that the
intermediate call controller calculates a path through the connection-oriented
network, and then amends the call processing message to include encrypted
network information about the path, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 9-10
and Reply Br. 5-6. We disagree with the Appellants. Nielsen describes that
an initial sender defines a message to be sent to an ultimate receiver through
intermediaries. Nielsen ¶ 0053. An intermediary amends the message to
insert another intermediary in to the path of the message. Nielsen ¶ 0053.
That is, the intermediary calculates a path for the message, inserts additional
intermediaries in to the path, and amends the message to include the
additional intermediaries. As such, Nielsen describes the claimed features.
The Appellants also argue that Nielsen fails to describe a path that includes
links on a network; however, each intermediary is a link on the network. As
such, the Appellants’ argument is not found to be persuasive.
The Appellants further contend that Nielsen fails to describe “an input
network interface adapted to receive a call processing message requesting
establishment of a path for the call through the connection-oriented
network,” as per claim 2. App. Br. 10-11. The Examiner responded to this
argument at Answer 11-12. We find that the Examiner has fully responded
to this argument and accordingly adopt the Examiner’s findings and
Appeal 2009-014125
Application 10/170,701

7
conclusions as our own. Ans. 5-6 and 11-12. For the reasons submitted by
the Examiner, we do not find this argument persuasive.
The Appellants argue that claims 6, 42, and 43 are similar to claim 2,
and claim 24 is similar to claim 1, and the Examiner erred in rejecting these
claims for the reasons submitted in support of claims 1 and 2. We disagree
with the Appellants. The Appellants arguments were not found to be
persuasive supra and are not persuasive here for the same reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-2, 4-7, 24-29, 31-32,
and 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Nielsen.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-7, 24-29, 31-32, and 42-44 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Nielsen is sustained.

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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

msc