11199938 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2014)

Ex Parte Szczesniak et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 18, 2014

11199938 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 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. 11/199,938 08/08/2005 Mark Szczesniak 50325-1123 3528 29989 7590 07/21/2014 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 07/21/2014 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 2011-009801 Application 11/199,938 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 2011-009801 Application 11/199,938 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1–11, 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 being performed at an enabling node and comprising: constructing a per-topology label forwarding table, using a label advertisement comprising an association between a label value and a corresponding forwarding class and a topology identifier, by populating the per-topology 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 a Multi Protocol Label Switching (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 data communications network. 1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed February 17, 2011), Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 8, 2011), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 10, 2011), and the Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed December 22, 2010). Appeal 2011-009801 Application 11/199,938 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Shin US 2003/0002444 A1 Jan. 2, 2003 Kanetake US 2003/0137978 A1 July 24, 2003 REJECTIONS Claims 1–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanetake, Shin, and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). Ans. 4. ISSUE The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–11 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 9–11. 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 2011-009801 Application 11/199,938 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 9–11. App. Br. 6–9; Reply Br. 1–4. Appellants specifically argue that Kanetake is silent regarding a topology identifier. App. Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 1–2. Appellants contend that although 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. App. Br. 6 (citing Kanetake ¶ 43); see also Reply Br. 1–2. 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.” App. Br. 7. We disagree with Appellants. Although the Examiner found Kanetake does not use the term “topology,” Examiner construed the claimed “topology” to encompass Kanetake’s teaching of “route” and “label switched path” and “virtual link.” Ans. 5–6, 13. 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 ¶ 39; Fig. 1. Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s construction of “topology” to be both reasonable and consistent with the Specification. Appeal 2011-009801 Application 11/199,938 5 Examiner also found Kanetake to describe a topology identifier where it states, “[t]he route . . . via which IP packets belonging to the same FEC are forwarded within the MPLS network 30 is uniquely determined at the initial label binding procedure.” Ans. 13 (quoting Kanetake ¶ 43) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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. Absent persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings, we agree with the Examiner that Kanetake describes a topology identifier. Appellants further contend that cited references fail to teach or suggest “constructing a per-topology label forwarding table using an advertisement comprising . . . a topology identifier,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 9–11. App. Br. 9-11. In particular, Appellants argue Kanetake does not populate a per-topology forwarding table using a topology identifier. App. Br. 9-10. 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 9–11 for the same reasons. Further, Examiner found Kanetake to describe an advertisement comprising a topology identifier to populate a per-topology forwarding table. Ans. 5 and 15 (citing Kanetake ¶¶ 21 and 22). Absent persuasive evidence or rationale to rebut these findings by the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner that Kanetake describes using an advertisement comprising a topology identifier to construct a per-topology label forwarding table. Appeal 2011-009801 Application 11/199,938 6 Appellants additionally contend the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. App. Br. 11-12. Although the Examiner found Kanetake to teach a “topology,” as construed above, the Examiner found Kanetake does not use the specific term “topology.” Ans. 5–6, 13. The Examiner found Shin to teach the specific term “topology.” Ans. 6, 14. 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. 6. Appellants have not provided any persuasive evidence or rationale to rebut these findings by the Examiner. We have determined that the Examiner has provided the requisite analysis to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Further, we conclude 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. Appeal 2011-009801 Application 11/199,938 7 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kanetake, Shin, and AAPA. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–11 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 msc