Ex Parte Simmons et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

10159718 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte IAN M. SIMMONS, DAVID J. WOOLGAR, NORBERT N.
EIGELDINGER, RAINER G. ZWING, and PAUL D. WOLF
____________________

Appeal 2010-001983
Application 10/159,718
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, THU A. DANG,
and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001983
Application 10/159,718

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-3 and 5-23 (App. Br. 3). Claim 4 is cancelled (id.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of determining the
topology of a network that includes a master node that sends read data to a
slave node; wherein, the slave node checks its output ports and adapts the
read data (including the path information from the master to the slave) by
appending the read data with the port ID of its output port prior to making
the data available for the succeeding node (Abstract; Spec. 8:12-26).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method to determine the topology of a network,
comprising:

interconnecting a master node and at least one slave node
by unidirectional data connections, wherein the master node is
operable to connect via a first port to a first immediately
succeeding slave node and to make available data for reading
by said first immediately succeeding slave node;

reading data from an immediately preceding node by a
slave node, said slave node including a second port adapted for
connecting to a second immediately succeeding node;

adapting, by said slave node, the data in dependence on
an identity of said second port; and
Appeal 2010-001983
Application 10/159,718

3

making available the adapted data for reading by said
second immediately succeeding node, such that the adapted
data discloses to a succeeding node in the network a path from a
preceding node in the network up to and including the slave
node.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Liang US 5,732,086 Mar. 24, 1998
Greaves US 6,111,858 Aug. 29, 2000
Tomassetti US 2002/0186662 A1 Dec. 12, 2002
Remboski US 6,934,612, B2 Aug. 23, 2005
(effectively filed Jun. 12, 2003)
Wolf US 7,088,398 B1 Aug. 08, 2006
(effectively filed Mar. 12, 2002)

Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Greaves in view of Remboski.
Claims 6, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Greaves in view of Remboski and Wolf.
Claims 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Greaves in view of Remboski and Tomassetti.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Greaves in view of Remboski and Liang.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
concluding that the combination of Greaves and Remboski teaches or would
have suggested “adapting, by said slave node, the data in dependence on an
Appeal 2010-001983
Application 10/159,718

4
identity of said second port” (claim 1, emphasis added). In particular, the
issue turns upon whether the combined teachings disclose that a first slave
node transmitting data to another subsequent slave node amends the data
with the identity of the port of the first slave node.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Greaves
1. Greaves discloses a method of determining the topology of a
network; wherein, command cells 420 sent by switches include identifiers of
the ports encountered along the way accumulated in source route address
410 (Fig. 5; col. 11, ll. 8-15).
Remboski
2. Remboski discloses an arbitration field 604 may be adapted to
contain a packet type identifier 614, a route pointer 616, port identifiers 618,
620 and 622, a source node identifier 624 and a priority tag 626; wherein,
the port identifiers 618-622 identify the ports of the network elements that
the data packet has traversed (col. 5, ll. 35-45).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 21-23
Only those arguments actually made by the Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which the Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) (2008).
Appeal 2010-001983
Application 10/159,718

5
Appellants provide similar arguments with respect to independent
claims 1, 3, 5, and 16 (App. Br. 8-12). Further, Appellants provide a similar
argument with respect to dependent claim 8, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 21-23 (App.
Br. 10-12). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as being representative of the
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants contend that “Greaves only suggests identifying the port
on which the cell was received” which is “[i]n contrast [to Appellants’]
claim 1 [that] recites identifying the second port which is connected to a
second immediately succeeding node, which is identifying the port from
which the data can be read” (App. Br. 8). Appellants argue that “Remboski
describes the port identifiers as network elements” which “are not described
as, nor suggested to be, output ports” (App. Br. 8). Appellants assert that
“local neighbor tables shown in Figure l0 … do[] not suggest that this port
information is included in any of the data packets 600” (App. Br. 9).
However, the Examiner finds that Remboski “clearly discloses that
port identifiers are used, in which the port identifiers represent the network
element” and “that each node includes an input/output port” (Ans. 17).
Appellants’ argument that “claim 1 recites identifying the second port
which is connected to a second immediately succeeding node, which is
identifying the port from which the data can be read, which is identifying the
port from which the data can be read” (App. Br. 8) is not commensurate in
scope with the specific language of claim 1 (App. Br. 8). In particular, claim
1 does not recite such “identifying the second port which is connected to a
second immediately succeeding node” or “identifying the port from which
the data can be read” as Appellants argue.
App
App

wher
enco
meth

5, wh
the n
send
Simi
322
iden
eal 2010-0
lication 10
Greaves
ein, comm
untered al
Greaves
Figure 5
od used in
In partic
en a node
ode 324 a
ing the com
larly, whe
appends th
We find
tity of its p
01983
/159,718
discloses
and cells
ong the wa
’ Figure 5
depicts a
the ATM
ular, pursu
324 recei
ppends the
mand ce
n the data
e comman
that each n
ort. That
a method o
sent by sw
y accumu
is reprodu
diagram il
subnetwo
ant to the
ves the com
port ID (“
ll to the ne
is sent to a
d cell with
ode in Gr
is, we find
6
f determin
itches incl
lated in so
ced below
lustrating t
rk of FIG.
source rou
mand ce
PORT3”)
xt port, “P
nother por
its port ID
eaves adap
that “adap
ing the to
ude identi
urce route
:
he source
1 (col. 5,
te address
ll (420 and
onto the c
ORT4” of
t “PORT3
“PORT4
ts the dat
ting, by s
pology of
fiers of the
address (F
route addr
ll. 40-41).
ing metho
430) at “
ommand c
node 322
” of node
.”
a based up
aid slave n
a network
ports
F 1).

essing
d of Figur
PORT3,”
ell prior t
.
321, node
on the
ode, the
;
e
o

Appeal 2010-001983
Application 10/159,718

7
data in dependence on an identity of said second port” (claim 1) reads on
Greaves’ method of determining the topology of a network.
In addition, Remboski discloses an arbitration field may be adapted to
contain port identifiers which identify the ports associated with the network
elements from which the data packet has traversed (FF 2). We find that port
identifiers include information that is dependent upon the identity of the
port. That is, we find that “adapting, by said slave node, the data in
dependence on an identity” (claim 1) reads on Remboski’s arbitration field.
We find that the combination of Greaves and Remboski at least
suggests providing “adapting, by said slave node, the data in dependence on
an identity of said second port,” as specifically required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Greaves
in further view of Remboski; and independent claims 3, 5, and 16 and claims
8, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 21-23 depending from claims 1, 3,5, and 16 which
have been grouped therewith.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20
Appellants argue that claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are
patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect
to claim 1 (App. Br. 12-13).
As noted supra, however, we see no deficiencies in the combined
teachings of Greaves and Remboski. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 6, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20 over Greaves in further view
of Remboski and Wolf; of claims 7 and 10 over Greaves in further view of
Remboski and Tomassetti; and of claim 2 over Greaves in further view of
Remboski and Liang.
Appeal 2010-001983
Application 10/159,718

8

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) 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

peb