Ex Parte Sivakumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

11063284 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/063,284 02/22/2005
23859 7590 08/25/2016
Ballard Spahr LLP
SUITE 1000
999 PEACHTREE STREET
ATLANTA, GA 30309-3915
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Raghupathy Sivakumar
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.
01298.0003U2 8854
EXAMINER
HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 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):
USpatentmail@ballardspahr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAGHUP ATHY SIV AKUMAR and HUNG-YUN
HSIEH
Appeal2014-009583
Application 11/063,284
Technology Center 2400
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, 37-52, 54, and 56. App. Br. 2. Claims 21-36, 53,
and 55 are canceled. Final Act. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
Claims 1-3, 10, 14, 17, 37, 38, 45, 48, and 52 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Partridge (US 2002/0161892 Al, published
Oct. 31, 2002) and O'Neill (US 2004/0170125 Al, published Sept. 2, 2004).
Ans. 2-21.
Appeal2014-009583
Application 11/063,284
Claims 4---6 and 39--41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Partridge, O'Neill, and Wallentin et al. (US 6,594,238 Bl,
issued July 15, 2003). Ans. 21-24.
Claims 7-9, 18, 42--44, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Partridge, O'Neill, and Butt et al. (US 2002/0120672 Al,
published Aug. 29, 2002). Ans. 24--29.
Claims 11, 13, 15, 16, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Partridge, O'Neill, and Bahadiroglu (US 2002/0186660 Al,
published Dec. 12, 2002). Ans. 30-32.
Claims 12 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Partridge, O'Neill, and Su et al. (US 6,625,161 Bl, issued Sept. 23,
2003). Ans. 33-34.
Claims 19 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Partridge, O'Neill, and Haverinen et al. (US 2002/0161905 Al,
published Oct. 31, 2002). Ans. 34--36.
Claims 20 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Partridge, O'Neill, and Tomoe et al. (US 2006/0215592 Al, published
Sept. 28, 2006). Ans. 36-37.
Claims 54 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Partridge, O'Neill, and Renwick et al. (US 7,151,775 Bl, issued Dec.
19, 2006). Ans. 37-39.
We reverse.
2
Appeal2014-009583
Application 11/063,284
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "communication of data over a
plurality of parallel data communication paths." Spec. 1: 15. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for communicating data over parallel
data paths comprising:
characterizing each of a plurality of parallel data paths by
repeatedly determining path properties, the plurality of parallel
data paths defining a single virtual connection between a
sending node and receiving node, wherein at least one of the
plurality of parallel data paths comprises a plurality of
intermediate nodes; and
scheduling the transmission of data across the plurality of
parallel data paths to meet an objective function, the scheduling
based on the path properties.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3, 10, 14, 17, 37, 38, 45, 48, AND
52 BY PARTRIDGE AND O'NEILL
The Examiner finds Partridge and 0 'Neill teach all limitations of
claim 1. Ans. 2-7. The Examiner relies on Partridge for all claim
limitations, except for the recited (claim 1) "wherein at least one of the
plurality of parallel data paths comprises a plurality of intermediate nodes,"
for which the Examiner relies on 0 'Neill. Ans. 4--5. The Examiner reasons
it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the references. Ans.
5-7.
Appellants present, among other arguments, the following principal
argument:
Even combined with a path as presently defined, Partridge
cannot be applied to achieve the present claims. Partridge would
3
Appeal2014-009583
Application 11/063,284
still make decisions based on the status of the first link on the
paths, which would not result in optimal decisions. Partridge
cannot be extended to use paths without significant
modifications, beyond the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
App. Br. 14.
Appellants persuade us that the Examiner erred in the legal conclusion
of obviousness.
Although Partridge teaches scheduling over sublinks (see Ans. 3), the
Examiner has not adequately explained how, Partridge would schedule
based on repeatedly determined path properties over a path with
intermediate nodes. The Examiner has not adequately explained how
scheduling based on the first sublink in Partridge is scheduling based on path
properties. To the extent Partridge would have been further modified, the
Examiner has not adequately explained how or why such a modification
would be made. Thus, on this record, modifying Partridge to use O'Neill's
paths having intermediate nodes, in such a way to achieve the claimed
invention as recited in claim 1, has not been shown to be obvious.
In the Examiner's Answer, in response to Appellants' arguments, the
Examiner explains "[t]here is teaching, suggestion, and motivation, in the
above statement, to extend the design, of the Partridge reference, to
encompass the Internet; thereby, adding intermediate nodes." Ans. 40
(citing Partridge i-f 4); see also Ans. 41 ("O'Neill, simply, provides further
detail on how this design extension is performed: e.g. [0089] intermediate
nodes."). We do not agree. Partridge (i-f 4) discloses Internet services and
O'Neill (i-f 98) discloses intermediate nodes, but these disclosures are
insufficient to explain how Partridge's operation (striping over available
sub links) would be applied to a path with intermediate nodes. Again, the
4
Appeal2014-009583
Application 11/063,284
Examiner has not adequately explained how Partridge would schedule based
on repeatedly determined path properties over a path with intermediate
nodes, which requires more than simply transmission over available first
sub links.
Further, the various rationales set forth by the Examiner (see Ans. 41-
46) similarly fail to explain how Partridge's operation (striping over
available sub links) would be applied to a path with intermediate nodes. Put
another way, all of these rationales suggest that Partridge's sublinks are
simply replaced with paths having intermediate nodes, but Partridge stripes
packets over available sublinks and how this technique would have any
applicability to higher-layer paths has not been established on the current
record.
We, therefore, are constrained by the record to not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
For these same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 3 7, which recites "repeatedly determining
path properties," "at least one of the plurality of parallel data paths
comprises a plurality of intermediate nodes," and "scheduling based on the
path properties."
For these same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 52, which recites "repeatedly determining
path properties," "at least one of the plurality of parallel data paths
comprises a plurality of intermediate nodes," and "scheduling based on the
path properties."
Further, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 2, 3, 10, 14, 17, 38, 45, and 48.
5
Appeal2014-009583
Application 11/063,284
THE REMAINING REJECTIONS
All of the claims rejected in the remaining rejections depend variously
from independent claims 1, 37, and 52.
In making the remaining rejections, the Examiner does not overcome
the deficiencies discussed above when addressing claim 1. See Ans. 21-39.
We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claims 4---6 and 39--41 as
obvious over Partridge, O'Neill, and Wallentin; the rejection of claims 7-9,
18, 42--44, and 49 as obvious over Partridge, O'Neill, and Butt; the rejection
of claims 11, 13, 15, 16, and 46 as obvious over Partridge, O'Neill, and
Bahadiroglu; the rejection of claims 12 and 47 as obvious over Partridge,
O'Neill, and Su; the rejection of claims 19 and 50 as obvious over Partridge,
O'Neill, and Haverinen; the rejection of claims 20 and 51 as obvious over
Partridge, O'Neill, and Tomoe; and the rejection of claims 54 and 56 as
obvious over Partridge, O'Neill, and Renwick.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20, 37-52, 54, and 56 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6