10953326 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 14, 2012)

Ex Parte Suzuki

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 14, 2012

10953326 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/953,326 09/29/2004 Yuichi Suzuki P/2108-36 3546 2352 7590 08/15/2012 OSTROLENK FABER LLP 1180 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK, NY 10036-8403 EXAMINER BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2478 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/15/2012 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 YUICHI SUZUKI ____________ Appeal 2009-015241 Application 10/953,326 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before THOMAS S. HAHN, DENISE M. POTHIER, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015241 Application 10/953,326 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-9, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention Appellant’s invention relates to a flow control system and a method for controlling flow in a network having a router to carry out routing control. See Spec. 1:6-9. Claim 1 reads as follows with a key disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A flow control system for controlling a flow on a network, which has a router group for carrying out a routing control, the flow control system comprising: a flow control server configured for forecasting fluctuation in the traffic on the network to be controlled, the forecasting being based on searching and obtaining information stored on the flow control server and on traffic information on the Internet, and the flow control server issuing a flow control command on the basis of the forecast to prevent a congestion in said network; and a management server for controlling a routing information of each router on the basis of said flow control command from said flow control server, the management server sending out a routing control command to said each router on the basis of the flow control command, wherein each of said routers is configured to carry out routing control by setting its own routing information based on the routing control command received from said management server, to realize flow control on the network. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Anderson US 2002/0174217 A1 Nov. 21, 2002 McDysan US 7,046,680 B1 May 16, 2006 (filed Nov. 28, 2000) Appeal 2009-015241 Application 10/953,326 3 The Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McDysan and Anderson. Ans. 3-12.1 THE CONTENTIONS Regarding representative claim 1, Appellant argues that McDysan fails to teach or suggest the claimed router configured to set its own routing information. Br. 10. Appellant also contends that Anderson does not cure this deficiency. Br. 10-11. The Examiner finds that the programmable access device (PAD) discussed in McDysan teach and suggest the claimed router. Ans. 3, 13-14. ISSUES Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that McDysan and Anderson would have taught or suggested: (1) each router in a router group is configured to carry out routing control by setting its own routing information as recited in independent claims 1-3, 8, and 9? (2) each router in a router group carrying out the routing control as recited in independent claims 6 and 7? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent part, each 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed March 16, 2009 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 2, 2009. Appeal 2009-015241 Application 10/953,326 4 router to be configured to carry out routing control by setting its own routing information. As the Examiner explains (Ans. 13-14), McDysan teaches a typical PAD 40 implements software and conventional router hardware to provide the functions shown in Figure 3. Col. 7, ll. 20-25; Fig. 3. McDysan also states that the described invention replaces edge routers with the distributed network access system “that allocates the functionality of traditional edge routers . . . among three logical modules[,]” (col. 3, ll. 33- 36) including the PADs. Col. 3, ll. 31-37. Additionally, the disclosure does not define a router such that a PAD is excluded from being a router. See Spec. 21:25-22:28. McDysan further teaches that a network access system 31 can have one or more PADs 40 (col. 7, l. 1; col. 9, ll. 33-36; Figs. 2, 4) and thus, includes a router group. We therefore, find that McDysan teaches or suggests each PAD (e.g., 40, 40a, 40b) in the McDysan’s network access system is a router. Regarding whether each router (e.g., PAD) is configured to carry out routing control by setting its own routing information, McDysan states each PAD performs traffic management and policy control (col. 8, ll. 64-66), contains required forwarding and packet classification functions, and contains optional traffic conditioning functional modules that implement marking, policing, monitoring, and shaping for incoming and outgoing packets (col. 3, ll. 39-42; col.6, ll. 2-5; col. 7, ll. 15-20). Specifically and as noted by the Examiner (see Ans. 13), McDysan teaches a PAD 40 includes packet header filters 80 and 90, marker/policer 82, monitors 84 and 92, forwarding table 86, output buffers and schedulers 88 and 96, and marker/shaper 94. Col. 7, ll. 26-36. These functions, such as filtering, marking, policing, and forwarding, include routing controls that must Appeal 2009-015241 Application 10/953,326 5 contain routing information to perform their disclosed functions. See id. These functions are described by McDysan in more detail. See col. 7, l. 26– col. 8, l. 65; Fig. 3. For example, these functions include: (1) the header filter directing the packet to an external processor or marker/policer 82 (col. 7, ll. 50-54; Fig. 3); (2) using a forwarding table 86 to forward packets through the access network toward access router 44 (col. 8, ll. 29-34; Fig. 3); and (3) scheduling transmission of buffered packets ready for transmission over the communication network 30 (col. 8, ll. 35-46; Fig. 3). Each of these functions (e.g., directing, forwarding, and scheduling) concerns routing information that is carried out or controlled by the PAD (e.g., a router), and, by performing these functions as discussed, components of the PAD set this routing information. Also, each of these controls is performed internally by the PAD (see Fig. 3) and does not use external element controls for performing these functions and setting this routing information, as Appellant asserts (Br. 10). Based on the above discussion, we need not address whether Anderson cures any purported deficiency in McDysan. Br. 10-11. Notably, independent claims 6 and 7 are broader in scope than independent claims 1-3, 8, and 9. That is, claims 6 and 7 only recite each router carries out routing control. As explained above, McDysan teaches how each router carries out routing control. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2-9 not separately argued with particularity. Appeal 2009-015241 Application 10/953,326 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-9 under § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 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 rwk