Ex Parte Solotorevsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 12, 2012

10495495 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/495,495 05/13/2004 Gad Solotorevsky 3213/9 4926
1444 7590 10/12/2012
Browdy and Neimark, PLLC
1625 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
BATES, KEVIN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GAD SOLOTOREVSKY, NATAN KRISI,
and SVETLANA MELTZIN
____________

Appeal 2010-004851
Application 10/495,495
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before STEVEN J. BARTLETT, Division 2 Support Manager.

ORDER RE-MAILING BOARD DECISION

This appeal was originally decided on August 10, 2012 (see attached
copy of the decision). The decision, however, was returned to the USPTO
Mail Center as undeliverable on August 20, 2012. Accordingly, the decision
is being re-mailed. Appellants’ time for seeking rehearing under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1) expires two (2) months from the mail date of this order.
If there are any questions pertaining to this Order, please contact the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board at 571-272-9797.
msc

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/495,495 05/13/2004 Gad Solotorevsky 3213/9 4926
7590 08/10/2012
BROWDY AND NEIMARK, P.L.L.C.
624 Ninth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001-5303
EXAMINER
BATES, KEVIN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GAD SOLOTOREVSKY, NATAN KRISI,
and SVETLANA MELTZIN
____________

Appeal 2010-004851
Application 10/495,495
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM,
and KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 12 and 14-21. Claims 1-11 and 13 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2010-004851
Application 10/495,495

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method for allocating
network resources based on a set of predefined rules to improve the
performance of the overall network (see Spec. 3:15 – 4:9).
Claim 12, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
12. In a system where users send data via a
telecommunications network, a method of network resource
allocation:
a) for each user of a plurality of users, recording
respective historical temporal network usage patterns to
determine, for said each user, historical respective heavier
usage time periods and respective lighter usage time periods;
b) associating each user of said plurality of users with a
respective user rank according to a respective value of said each
user to an operator of the telecommunications network; and
c) in response to at least one condition selected from the
group consisting of:
i) a surge in traffic at a given time and
ii) a reduction in network capacity at said given
time, determining, for each said user of said plurality of
users, from said respective historical temporal network
usage pattern data determined in step (a) including
information describing said historical respective heavier
usage time periods and respective lighter usage time
periods, a respective estimated network resources
consumption for said each user at said given time of at
least one condition; and
d) in accordance with said user ranks and with said user-
specific estimated network resource consumption for said given
time, allocating, to said each user of said plurality of users, a
respective amount of network resources.

Appeal 2010-004851
Application 10/495,495

3
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 12 and 14-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Vaid (US 6,078,953).
1
(See Ans. 3-7).
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims
because the cited portions of Vaid do not teach “allocating network
resources based on user-specific historical use of network resources” recited
in all the rejected claims (Br. 13-14). Appellants specifically argue that the
cited passages in column 10 of Vaid do not disclose steps (c) and (d) of
claim 12 because Vaid considers the aggregate usage information, rather
than the users’ individual historical usage (Br. 14-15). Additionally,
Appellants contend that Vaid discloses nothing related to “allocating
network resources based on user-specific historical use of network
resources” (Br. 15). Appellants further assert that the subject matter of
claim 12 is not anticipated because the cited passages in column 10, 15, and
16 refer to managing bandwidth instead of allocating bandwidth (Br. 15-16).
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 14 and 20 based on the
same reasons stated above with respect to claim 12 and of claims 15-19 and
21 based on their dependency on their base claim, allowing those claims to
fall with independent claim 12 (see Br. 16-17).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 12 as being anticipated by
Vaid because the reference does not teach “in accordance with said user

1
The Examiner has indicated on page 3 of the Examiner’s Answer that the
rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is withdrawn.
Appeal 2010-004851
Application 10/495,495

4
ranks and with said user-specific estimated network resource consumption
for said given time, allocating, to said each user of said plurality of users, a
respective amount of network resources?”

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions.
As stated by the Examiner (Ans. 7-8), the description of the
bandwidth management of Vaid indicates recording of historical temporal
network usage for each user by disclosing monitoring the network traffic by
source address (col. 9, l. 67 – col. 10, l. 4) and day to day monitoring of
problems or limitations that are specific to a particular user (col. 10, ll. 54-
61). We further find that the Examiner properly relies on Vaid’s disclosure
of the bandwidth and traffic management for different classes of traffic or
user/source (Ans. 8 (citing col. 13, ll. 57-67; col. 14, ll. 40-42; col. 16, ll. 7-
10)). We also agree with the Examiner’s statement (Ans. 8) that Vaid’s
enforcing the policies, including bandwidth limits, on particular users at
certain time periods discloses the claimed allocating network resources
based on the user’s specific usage. That is, once the user-specific network
resource consumption for a given time is identified, Vaid’s policies
determine the traffic flow in terms of bandwidth limits and other network
resources available to a user (see col. 16, ll. 7-17).
Accordingly, we conclude that the relied-on portions of Vaid
adequately disclose the disputed features of claim 12.

Appeal 2010-004851
Application 10/495,495

5
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because Vaid teaches all
the recited limitations of claim 12, the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 12 as being anticipated by Vaid. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claim 12 and of claims 14-21 falling therewith, as anticipated by Vaid.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 12 and 14-21 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

ELD