Ex Parte Szczesniak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 16, 2014

11200204 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2014)

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.
11/200,204 08/08/2005 Mark Szczesniak 50325-1124 4190
29989 7590 07/16/2014
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP
1 ALMADEN BOULEVARD
FLOOR 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
PREVAL, LIONEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2475
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2014 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 MARK SZCZESNIAK,
FRANCOIS LAURENT LE FAUCHEUR,
and JOHNNY DEAN POULIN
____________________

Appeal 2011-009894
Application 11/200,204
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009894
Application 11/200,204

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
1

Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1-12, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appellants claim to have invented a method and apparatus for
enabling routing of label switched data packets. Spec. ¶ 2.
An understanding of the claimed invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A method of enabling routing of label switched data packets
in a data communications network comprising a plurality of
nodes and supporting multiple topologies, the method
comprising:
at an enabling node within a topology in a Multi Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS) network environment, processing a
label value advertisement comprising an association between a
label value and a corresponding forwarding class and a
topology identifier, by populating a forwarding table with the
label value as an ingress label together with a next-hop for the
corresponding forwarding class and the topology identifier;
wherein the label value is an MPLS label of a link that
spans the enabling node and a next-hop MPLS node adjacent to
the enabling node;
wherein the topology identifier uniquely identifies a first
topology in the MPLS network environment; and
carrying out a MPLS routing enabling step in relation to
the label value advertisement within the topology in the MPLS
network environment.

1
Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed June 8, 2011), Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed February 17,
2011), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 24, 2011), and the Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed December 21, 2010).
Appeal 2011-009894
Application 11/200,204

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Shin
Kanetake
US 2003/0002444 A1
US 2003/0137978 A1
Jan. 2, 2003
July 24, 2003

REJECTION
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kanetake, Shin, and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art
(“AAPA”). Ans. 5.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanetake, Shin, and
AAPA turns on whether the combination of cited references teaches or
suggests a topology identifier as recited in independent claims 1 and 9-12.

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. We highlight the following
arguments for emphasis.
Appeal 2011-009894
Application 11/200,204

4
Appellants contend that the cited references fail to teach or suggest
“label value advertisement comprising an association between a label value
and a corresponding forwarding class and a topology identifier,” as recited
in independent claims 1 and 9-12. App. Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 1-5. Appellants
specifically argue that Kanetake is silent regarding a topology identifier.
App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 1-2. Appellants contend that while “Kanetake
describes a conventional MPLS label binding (association) between a label
value, a forwarding equivalence class and label binding information,”
Kanetake fails to describe “the particular association between a label value,
a corresponding forwarding class and a topology identifier as claimed.” Id.
(citing Kanetake ¶ 43). Appellants further argue, “Even if Kanetake’s label
and forwarding equivalence class could correspond to the ‘label value’ and
‘corresponding forwarding class,’ respectively, Kanetake’s label binding
information could not correspond to the topology identifier recited in claim
1.” Id.
We disagree with Appellants. Although the Examiner found
Kanetake to not use the term “topology,” Examiner construed the claimed
“topology” to encompass Kanetake’s teaching of “route (or label switched
path) for each class from an ingress node to an egress node . . .” and “virtual
link.” Ans. 6-7 and 16-18. Appellants have not provided any persuasive
evidence or rationale to rebut this finding by the Examiner. Furthermore,
the Specification states, “[t]he network supports a first topology (topology 1)
shown in a solid line providing a path along R1, R2, R3, R4 via links 114,
116, 118.” Specification ¶ 30; Fig. 1. Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s
construction of “topology” to be both reasonable and consistent with the
Specification.
Appeal 2011-009894
Application 11/200,204

5
Examiner also found Kanetake to describe a topology identifier where
it states, “[t]he route, [otherwise known as the label switched path (LSP)] . . .
is uniquely determined at the initial label binding procedure.” Ans. 17
(quoting Kanetake ¶ 43). Kanetake further discloses “identification
information relating to an output virtual link.” Kanetake ¶ 21. Appellants
have not provided any persuasive evidence or rationale to rebut these
findings by the Examiner. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Kanetake
describes a topology identifier.
Appellants further contend that the cited references fail to teach or
suggest “processing an advertisement comprising a topology identifier to
populate a per-topology forwarding table,” as recited in independent claims
1 and 9-12. App. Br. 11. In particular, Appellants argue Kanetake does not
populate a per-topology forwarding table using a topology identifier. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments in support of “topology
identifier,” as discussed above, and are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 and 9-12 for the same reasons. Further, Examiner found
Kanetake to describe “an advertisement comprising a topology identifier to
populate a per-topology forwarding table.” Ans. 6 and 22 (citing Kanetake
¶¶ 21 and 43). Absent persuasive evidence or rationale to rebut these
findings by the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner that Kanetake
describes “an advertisement comprising a topology identifier to populate a
per-topology forwarding table.”
Appellants additionally contend the Examiner failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. App. Br. 12. Although the Examiner
found Kanetake to teach a “topology” as discussed above, the Examiner
found Kanetake to not use the specific term “topology.” Ans. 6-7 and 16-18.
Appeal 2011-009894
Application 11/200,204

6
Examiner found Shin to teach the specific term “topology.” Ans. 6-7. We
find Kanetake and Shin to be analogous references because Kanetake and
Shin are directed to managing links/routes in Multiple Protocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Networks. Kanetake ¶¶ 1, 39; Shin, ¶¶ 2, 14. Further,
Kanetake describes the need for “improving the transmission latency of a
network, such as, the MPLS network.” Kanetake ¶ 10. Shin describes a
method in an MPLS network that “determines more than one traffic route at
an originating node in consideration of current network state and a traffic
demand to be routed.” Shin ¶ 14. The Examiner concluded that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to combine the references to “further identify a label switched
path.” Ans. 7. Appellants have not provided any persuasive evidence or
rationale to rebut these findings by the Examiner. Accordingly, the
Examiner has provided the requisite analysis to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. Further, we find that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the
references to identify a label switched path considering the current network
state and traffic demand in order to improve the transmission latency of a
MPLS network, as desired by Kanetake and addressed by Shin. Kanetake
¶ 10; Shin ¶ 14.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kanetake, Shin, and AAPA.

Appeal 2011-009894
Application 11/200,204

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kanetake, Shin, and AAPA is sustained.
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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ELD