Ex Parte SUGISONO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2018

14104271 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/104,271 12/12/2013
21828 7590 06/20/2018
CARRIER BLACKMAN AND ASSOCIATES PC
22960 VENTURE DRIVE
SUITE 100
NOVI, MI 48375
Koji SUGISONO
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.
IIP-188-A-l 1072
EXAMINER
FOUD, HICHAM B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2018 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):
cbalaw@gmail.com
wblackman@ameritech.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOJI SUGISONO, MICHIHIRO AOKI,
and HIDEAKI IWATA1
Appeal2018-000186
Application 14/104,271
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Real Party in Interest is identified as Nippon Telegraph and Telephone
Corp. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-000186
Application 14/104,271
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a path calculating method,
program and calculating apparatus capable of recalculating the shortest path
in the event of a topological change in a network. Spec. ,r 15. Claim 1,
reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is representative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A path calculating method by which a computer calculates the
shortest path which is the shortest communication path between two
nodes of a plurality of nodes in a network in which the plurality of
nodes are connected by links, by using information including
information on a shortest path group which is a set of the shortest
paths between the nodes, the method comprises steps of:
when the shortest path which is the shortest communication
path between two nodes of the plurality of nodes is calculated, based
on a triggering event which is a topological change including addition
of a link or deletion of a link, by using the information including a set
of shortest paths which has already been calculated after the
triggering event, wherein the set of shortest path[s] is generated
based on a topology changed by the triggering event,
p[ er ]forming a comparison step of comparing a distance of a
first communication path between, from among the plurality of nodes,
a starting node as a starting point of a communication path and an
adjacent node located adjacent to the starting node, to a distance of a
second communication path which has already been calculated other
than the first communication path,
if the distance of the first communication path is shorter than
the second communication path,
taking the first communication path as a candidate of the
shortest path,
and if the distance of the first communication path is not shorter
than the second communication path,
2
Appeal2018-000186
Application 14/104,271
taking the second communication path as a candidate of the
shortest path, and wherein the method further comprises a step of
taking the adjacent node as a next starting node.
REJECTION & REFERENCES
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Bartolanzo Jr. et al. (US
5,321,815; issued June 14, 1994) ("Bartolanzo") and Brown et al. (US
2004/0042396 Al; published Mar. 4, 2004) ("Brown").
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bartolanzo
and Brown teaches or suggests "when the shortest path which is the shortest
communication path between two nodes of the plurality of nodes is
calculated, based on a triggering event which is a topological change
including addition of a link or deletion of a link, by using the information
including a set of shortest paths which has already been calculated after the
triggering event, wherein the set of shortest path is generated based on a
topology change by the triggering event," as recited in independent claim 1
and commensurately recited in independent claims 5 and 7?
The Examiner relies on the combination of Bartolanzo and Brown to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 3-5, Ans. 6-7.
Appellants argue "the 'updates' disclosed by Brown are not the shortest
paths that were already calculated after the triggering event. The 'updates'
are merely updates to the router's link state database." App. Br. 16.
Appellants further argue Brown expressly discloses calculating the shortest
3
Appeal2018-000186
Application 14/104,271
path tree using the Dijkstra algorithm, but "the Dijkstra algorithm calculates
a shortest path tree without using the information including a set of shortest
path[ s] which has already been calculated after the triggering event, wherein
the set of shortest path[ s] is generated based on a topology changed by the
triggering event." App. Br. 16 ( emphasis omitted). According to
Appellants, "neither Bartolanzo nor Brown teaches or suggests that the set of
shortest path[ s] is generated based on a topology changed by the triggering
event." App. Br. 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusions. See Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 6-9.
Bartolanzo generally describes calculating preferred paths between nodes in
a network by using an existing tree as the base for a new, extended tree.
Bartolanzo col. 3, 11. 8-16, col. 5, 11. 59---63. When the status of a network
resource changes, Bartolanzo describes deciding to keep or discard a cached
tree. Bartolanzo col. 9, 11. 3-9. Brown is generally directed to routing
communication traffic and describes:
Under [Open Shortest Path First], when a network topology
change occurs ( e.g., an existing link goes down or a new link is
added), the affected routers will generate a link-state
advertisement. This advertisement will represent the collection
of all link-states on those routers. The routers for a given
[Autonomous System] will exchange link-states by means of
flooding: each router that receives a link-state update should
store a copy in its link-state database and then propagate the
update to other routers. After the database of each router is
completed, the router will calculate a shortest path tree to all
destinations using the Dijkstra algorithm. The destinations, the
associated costs, and the next hop to reach those destinations
will be used to form the IP routing table for each router.
4
Appeal2018-000186
Application 14/104,271
Brown ,r 26; see also Brown ,r 27 ("[t]he shortest path is calculated using the
[Dijkstra] algorithm").
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Bartolanzo and
Brown teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. The combination of
Bartolanzo and Brown teaches "when the shortest path which is the shortest
communication path between two nodes of the plurality of nodes is
calculated," (Bartolanzo col. 3, 11. 10-16, col. 5, 11. 59---62, calculating the
shortest path; Brown ,r 27, calculating the shortest path), "based on a
triggering event which is a topological change including addition of a link or
deletion of a link" (Brown ,r 26, network topology change occurs, including
adding a new link; Bartolanzo col. 9, 11. 3-5, status of network resource
changes), "by using the information including a set of shortest paths which
has already been calculated after the triggering event" (Brown ,r 26, after
affected routers update the database, the router will calculate a shortest path
tree to all destinations), "wherein the set of shortest path[ s] is generated
based on a topology change by the triggering event," (Brown ,r,r 26-27,
shortest path tree generated based on network topology change). Appellants
have not persuasively explained why the foregoing disclosure does not teach
or suggest the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred and we,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1, 5, and 7. For the same reasons, we, accordingly,
5
Appeal2018-000186
Application 14/104,271
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2-
4, 6, and 8-10, which were not separately argued.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6