Ex Parte Steinhorst et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 12, 2012

10609332 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LARRY HENRY STEINHORST, WILSON KIT-MAN CHAN,
and JUNJI YAMAMOTO
____________________

Appeal 2010-001793
Application 10/609,332
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III,
and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001793
Application 10/609,332

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-33 (App. Br. 4). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for
upgrading nodes within a fiber optics network from a first optical carrier
operable to send data frames, having N time slots, at a first data transmission
rate to a second optical carrier operable to send data frames, having M time
slots, at a second data transmission rate; wherein, M> N and the second data
transmission rate is greater than the first data transmission rate (Abstract;
Spec. 5:26-6:9 and 6:16-19). During the upgrading process, an upgraded
first node transmits data frames including only N of the M slots occupied
with data at the second data transmission rate along with an identifier that
identifies which slots are occupied to a second node, while the second node
is not upgraded and still enabled to transmit data at the first data
transmission rate (Abstract; Spec. 7:14-31).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for providing communications service during
an upgrade of an optical communications ring formed from a
plurality of nodes, each node operable to transmit and receive a
first frame having a number of first time slots equal to N,
wherein N is an integer and the first time slots are occupied by
data, the method comprising:

Appeal 2010-001793
Application 10/609,332

3
upgrading a first node in the optical communications ring
by increasing a data transmission rate of the first node to an
increased rate, the first node coupled to a second node, the
second node operable to transmit data at the data transmission
rate;

at the increased rate, transmitting data in a second frame
from the first node to the second node, the second frame having
a number of second time slots equal to M, wherein M is an
integer greater than N and the data occupies a number of the
second time slots of the second frame equal to N;

providing at least one identifier to the second node, the at
least one identifier identifying the occupied second time slots of
the second frame;

receiving the second frame at the second node; and

detecting, at the second node, the data in the identified
second time slots of the second frame according to the at least
one identifier.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gaskill US 5,629, 940 May 13, 1997
Taniguchi US 6,130,764 Oct. 10, 2000
Krishnamoorthy US 6,625,165 B1 Sep. 23, 2003
(filed Jul. 27, 1999)
Fatehi US 6,694,100 B1 Feb. 17, 2004
(filed Jun. 05, 2000)
Bruckman US 2004/0179518 A1 Sep. 16, 2004
(filed Mar. 12, 2003)

Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-15, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Bruckman in view of Gaskill.
Appeal 2010-001793
Application 10/609,332

4
Claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bruckman in view of Gaskill and Krishnamoorthy.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bruckman in view of Fatehi.
Claims 17-22 and 31stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bruckman in view of Gaskill and Fatehi.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bruckman in view of Gaskill, Fatehi, and Krishnamoorthy.
Claims 23, 24, and 26-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bruckman in view of Gaskill, Fatehi, and
Taniguchi.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bruckman in view of Gaskill, Fatehi, Taniguchi, and
Krishnamoorthy.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of Bruckman and Gaskill teaches or would have
suggested “at the increased rate, transmitting data in a second frame from
the first node to the second node, the second frame having a number of
second time slots equal to M, wherein M is an integer greater than N and the
data occupies a number of the second time slots of the second frame equal to
N” (claim 1, emphasis added). In particular, the issue turns upon whether
the combination of Bruckman and Gaskill would have suggested a system
that enables the intermittent upgrade of nodes where one node transmits data
at the old data transmission rate and the upgraded node transmits data frames
Appeal 2010-001793
Application 10/609,332

5
at the upgraded data transmission rate, necessitating that only N of the M to
be filled with data in order for the upgraded node to communicate with the
other node.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Bruckman
1. Bruckman discloses a ring network having an upgrade
procedure; wherein, switches 74 within add/drop multiplexers (ADM) 24a
and 24b are actuated to redirect traffic away from passing through the
respective ADM, such that the old interface cards within the ADMs may be
upgraded and replaced with new interface cards (Fig. 4; ¶ [0075]). In
particular, switch 74 of ADM 24a wraps incoming traffic on link 78 back
through west interface 72 of ADM 24a onto link 80, while switch 74 of
ADM 24b wraps traffic back through east interface 70 of ADM 24b (id.)
2. Optical Carrier (OC)-48 cards are upgraded to OC-192 cards;
wherein, the east interface 70 of ADM 24s and west interface 72 of ADM
24b are replaced with new OC-192 cards (id.).
3. After the replacement, switches 74 are cleared and traffic
resumes on segment 76 where only one of four available channels is used at
this stage (id.).
4. The hardware replacement process is repeated on each of the
segments of network 22 and all the segments of network 22 continue to
operate at the same rate while upgrading step 40 is in progress (¶ [0076]).
Appeal 2010-001793
Application 10/609,332

6
Gaskill
5. Gaskill discloses a pointer packet sent with a data packet
having a long message that contains a set of pointers that identify relative
time slot locations in the data frame that contain each portion of the long
message (col. 2, ll. 12-27).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-15, 32, and 33
As to independent claims 1 and 8, Appellants assert that “Bruckman
teaches that all nodes transmit at the same rate, regardless of their upgrade
status, but does not teach transmitting at an increased rate at one node while
another node transmits at the original rate” (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue
that, even if “an STS-48 frame of Bruckman has N time slots[] and an STS-
192 frame has M time slots after the entire network is upgraded to OC-192,
Bruckman would still fail to teach or suggest occupying N time slots of the
upgraded STS-192 frame with data,” since “doing so in Bruckman would
undermine the network upgrade of Bruckman to an OC-192 rate” (App. Br.
11).
However, the Examiner finds that Bruckman discloses “how the
system operation is maintained while the nodes are in the process of being
physically upgraded one by one, before the full rate increase is enabled
across all nodes” (Ans. 20). The Examiner also finds that “[t]he upgraded
node … has a higher rate comprising M time slots, but until the other nodes
are also upgraded, Bruckman disclose[s] that the data transmitted by the
upgraded node occupies only the number of time slots corresponding to the
old rate” (Ans. 21).
Appeal 2010-001793
Application 10/609,332

7
Bruckman discloses a ring network having an upgrade procedure
where old interface cards are replaced while a switch is activated within the
ADM to redirect traffic away from the card that is being upgraded (FF 1 and
2). After each card is replaced, the switch is cleared and traffic resumes on
the ADM where only one of four available channels is used (FF 3). This
hardware replacement process is repeated at each ADM while all the ADM
continue to operate at the same rate (FF 4).
In addition, Gaskill discloses a pointer packet sent with a data packet
that designates to which slot locations are occupied with data (FF 5).
Although the Examiner finds “Bruckman discloses that the data
transmitted by the upgraded node occupies only the number of time slots
corresponding to the old rate” (Ans. 21), we find that Bruckman does not
disclose or suggest that the data is transmitted at this reduced occupancy
after the data rate is increased to the new data rate corresponding to the data
transmission rate for the upgraded optical carrier. We agree with Appellants
that operating at such a reduced occupancy after an upgrade of all ADMs
(and an increase in the data transmission rate) “would undermine the
network upgrade of Bruckman to an OC-192 rate” (App. Br. 11). That is,
we find that Bruckman does not teach “at the increased rate, transmitting
data in a second frame from the first node to the second node, the second
frame having a number of second time slots equal to M, wherein M is an
integer greater than N and the data occupies a number of the second time
slots of the second frame equal to N” (claim 1, emphasis added).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bruckman in view
of Gaskill. Independent claim 8 recites similar limitations and thus stands
Appeal 2010-001793
Application 10/609,332

8
with claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent claims 1
and 8 and claims 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 12-15, 32, and 33 depending from claims
1and 8 which have been grouped therewith.
Claims 3, 11, and 16-30
As noted supra, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 8 from which
claims 3 and 11 respectively depend. As to independent claims 16, 23, and
31, Appellants argue that these claims are patentable over the cited prior art
for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 11-12).
The Examiner has not identified how Krishnamoorthy cures the noted
deficiencies of Bruckman and Gaskill. As such, we also reverse the
rejection of claims 3 and 11 over Bruckman in view of Gaskill and
Krishnamoorthy. Additionally, the Examiner has not identified how Fatehi
cures the noted deficiencies of Bruckman and Gaskill. As such, we also
reverse the rejection of claim 16 over Bruckman in view of Fatehi; the
rejection of claims 17-22 and 31 over Bruckman in view of Gaskill and
Fatehi; and the rejection of claim 17 over Bruckman in view of Gaskill,
Fatehi and Krishnamoorthy. Finally, the Examiner has not identified how
Taniguchi cure the noted deficiencies of Bruckman, Gaskill, and Fatehi. As
such, we also reverse the rejection of claims 23, 24, and 26-30 over
Bruckman in view of Gaskill, Fatehi and Taniguchi and the rejection of
claim 25 over Bruckman in view of Gaskill, Fatehi, Taniguchi, and
Krishnamoorthy.

Appeal 2010-001793
Application 10/609,332

9
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.

REVERSED

peb