Ex Parte Smith et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2012

09975841 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte RORY SMITH, JAQUELINE HENDRON,
and IVOR REA
_____________

Appeal 2010-005864
Application 09/975,841
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and RAMA G.
ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005864
Application 09/975,841

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 28 and 30 through 36.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to mapping a packet oriented client signal to
a synchronous network which preserves a buffer-to-buffer flow control
mechanism. See Specification pages 5 and 6. Claim 1 is representative of
the claimed invention under appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method of mapping a packet orientated client signal to
a synchronous network payload, the method including the
steps of:
receiving said client signal;
processing said client signal to a form suitable for
mapping to said payload which preserves a buffer-to-buffer
flow control mechanism of the client signal, wherein said step
of processing reduces the bandwidth of the client signal while
maintaining the integrity of a payload of the client signal; and
mapping said processed signal to said synchronous
network payload.

REFERENCES
Rauch US 6,243,510 B1 Jun. 5, 2001
Azizoglu US 6,430,201 B1 Aug. 6, 2002
Gerszberg US 6,452,923 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
Goodman US 6,636,529 B1 Oct. 21, 2003
Heuer US 6,842,455 B1 Jan. 11, 2005
Jordan US 6,934,301 B2 Aug. 23, 2005
Bisson US 6,965,619 B2 Nov. 15, 2005

Appeal 2010-005864
Application 09/975,841

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16
through 28, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jordan in
view of Bisson. Answer 3-12.1
The Examiner has rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jordan in view of Bisson and Rauch. Answer 12-13.
The Examiner has rejected claims 9 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Jordan in view of Bisson and Azizoglu. Answer 13-14.
The Examiner has rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jordan in view of Bisson and Gerszberg. Answer 14-15.
The Examiner has rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jordan in view of Bisson and Goodman. Answer 15-16.
The Examiner has rejected claims 30 through 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jordan in view of Bisson and Heuer. Answer
16-18.
ISSUES
Appellants’ arguments, on pages 9 and 10 of the Brief and pages 2
and 3 of the Reply Brief, present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in
combining the buffer to buffer control teachings of Bisson with the teachings
of Jordan?2

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
January 6, 2010.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 24,
2009 and Reply Brief filed January 7, 2010.
Appeal 2010-005864
Application 09/975,841

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the
Examiner.
Appellants’ arguments allege that “[t]he only justification [for the
combination] is that Jordan mentions the problem of buffer overflow” and
that the buffer overflow in Jordan is before mapping (therefore flow control
would be before mapping and there is no need to preserve flow control).
Brief 9-10; Reply Brief 2-3. We are not persuaded by this line of reasoning.
The Examiner’s rejection relates to combining Bisson’s teaching of buffer-
to-buffer control to control the flow between the buffers in Jordan (i.e.
buffer 116 to buffer 218, Figures 1&2). Answer 3, 4, and 19. The Examiner
concurs with Appellants that the buffer overflow discussed in Jordan is
before mapping, but this is not the buffer overflow being relied upon in the
rejection. Answer 19-20. The buffer overflow in Jordan is discussing
overflow of buffer 116 caused by data from the Ethernet, item 50 (see col 7,
ll. 48-55), whereas the buffer-to-buffer control of the combined teachings is
related to data flow from buffer 116 through 218. We consider the
Examiner’s statement on page 3 of the Answer to provide a reasoned
rationale for the combination of the references where the Examiner is
showing that a known process, buffer-to-buffer control, is being used for its
known function, to prevent overflow. Accordingly, Appellants have not
Appeal 2010-005864
Application 09/975,841

5

persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants assert, on page 10 of the Brief, the rejections of claims 2
through 28 and 30 through 36 are in error for the same reasons as claim 1.
As we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we similarly
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2 through 28 and 30 through 36.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 28 and 30 through 36 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

msc