Ex Parte Turányi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

13376755 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/376,755 12/07/2011 Zoltan Richard Turanyi
96750 7590 06/01/2016
Patents on Demand, P,A,
4581 Weston Road, Suite 345
Weston, FL 33331
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.
P29999-US1 9020
EXAMINER
KING, MONICA C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2844
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
docketing 1@patentsondemand.com
docketing3@patentsondemand.com
docketing.ericsson@thomsonreuters.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZOL TAN RICHARD TURANYI, ANDRAS CSASZAR,
A YODELE DAM OLA, STEP AN HELLKVIST,
ATTILA MIHALY, and LARS WESTBERG1
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
Technology Center 2800
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 40-78. Claims 1-39 are canceled. Preliminary Amend.
2 (Dec. 7, 2011). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ) as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
Invention
Appellants disclose a method and apparatus for sending data through
one or more packet data networks in which a stripped-down packet is sent
from a packet sending node towards a cache node, the stripped-down packet
including in its payload a pointer to a payload data segment stored in a file at
the cache node. Abstract. When the stripped-down packet is received at the
cache node, the pointer is used to identify the payload data segment from
data stored at the cache node. Id.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 40, 47, 51, and 58, reproduced below with key Hrnitations
emphasized, are exemplary:
40. A cache for use in a packet data network, comprising:
a receiver for receiving a packet from an upstream node,
the packet including transport and application headers and a
payload;
a storage medium for storing cached data;
a processor operatively connected to the receiver and
storage medium, the processor configured to:
determine whether the packet comprises a stripped-down
packet in which the payload thereof contains pointer
information identifj;ing a payload data segment;
if so, determine whether the payload data segment is
stored in the storage medium; and
if so, use the pointer information to locate and retrieve
the payload data segment from the storage medium, and insert
the retrieved payload data segment into the payload of the
packet; and
a transmitter operatively connected to the processor for
forwarding the packet towards a client.
2
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
4 7. The cache of claim 40, wherein, if the packet comprises a
stripped-down packet and the payload data segment is stored in
the storage medium, the processor is further configured to
remove a fall-back parameter from the packet header and
replace it with a correct value retrieved from the pointer
information, the fall-back parameter designed to cause the
client node to return an error message if the stripped-down
packet reaches the client node.
51. A payload stripper unit for use in a packet data network,
the payload stripper unit comprising:
a receiver for receiving a packet, the packet including
transport and application headers and a payload;
a processor operatively connected to the receiver and
configured to remove a payload data segment from the payload
of the packet and insert pointer information into the packet so
as to generate a stripped-down packet, the pointer information
for enabling a cache downstream of the payload stripper unit to
identifY the payload data segment from the data held by the
cache; and
a transmitter operatively connected to the processor for
fonvarding the stripped-dov,rn packet tmvards the cache.
58. The payload stripper unit of claim 51, wherein the
payload stripper is further configured to combine the packets
from which payload data segments have been removed to form
an aggregated packet.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 40, 41, 44, 50-52, 54, 58---63, 67-71, and
75-78 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Housel (US
6,453,343 Bl; iss. Sept. 17, 2002) and McCanne (US 2008/0320151 Al;
publ. Dec. 25, 2008). Final Act. 3-12.
The Examiner rejects claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Housel, McCanne, and Ma (US 2010/0192225 Al; publ.
July 29, 2010). Final Act. 12-13.
3
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
The Examiner rejects claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Housel, McCanne, and Cha (US 200710014404 A 1; publ.
Jan. 18, 2007). Final Act. 13.
The Examiner rejects claims 45 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Housel, McCanne, and Nishihara
(US 2002/0016852 Al; publ. Feb. 7, 2002). Final Act. 13-14, 18-19.
The Examiner rejects claims 46, 64, 65, 72, and 74 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Housel, McCanne, and Cain (US
6,628,620 Bl; iss. Sept. 30, 2003). Final Act. 14--16.
The Examiner rejects claims 47--49, 66, and 73 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Housel, McCanne, Gandhi
(US 2003/0053546 Al; publ. Mar. 20, 2003), Levine (US 6,073,129; iss.
June 6, 2000), and Cain. Final Act. 16-18, 21-23.
The Examiner rejects claims 55 and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Housel, McCanne, Levine, and Cain. Final Act 19-
20.
The Examiner rejects claim 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Housel, McCanne, Levine, Caine, Chen
(US 2006/0018479 Al; publ. Jan. 26, 2006), and Anand (US 2008/0256147
Al; publ. Oct. 16, 2008). Final Act. 20-21.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Housel
and McCanne teaches or suggests:
a processor operatively connected to the receiver and
configured to remove a payload data segment from the payload
of the packet and insert pointer information into the packet so
as to generate a stripped-down packet, the pointer information
4
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
for enabling a cache downstream of the payload stripper unit to
identify the payload data segment from the data held by the
cache,
as recited in claim 51?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Housel and
McCanne teaches or suggests "wherein the payload stripper is further
configured to combine the packets from which payload data segments have
been removed to form an aggregated packet," as recited in claim 58?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Housel and
McCanne teaches or suggests:
determin[ing] whether the packet comprises a stripped-down
packet in which the payload thereof contains pointer
information identifying a payload data segment;
if so, determin[ing] whether the payload data segment is stored
in the storage medium; and
if so, us[ing] the pointer information to locate and retrieve the
payload data segment from the storage medium, and insert[ing]
the retrieved payload data segment into the payload of the
packet,
as recited in claim 40?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Housel,
McCanne, Gandhi, Levine, and Cain teaches or suggests a "fall-back
parameter designed to cause the client node to return an error message if the
stripped-down packet reaches the client node," as recited in claim 47?
ANALYSIS
Claims 51-54, 59, 77, and 78
In rejecting claim 51, the Examiner finds Housel' s replacement of a
transmit segment with an identifier to provide a differenced communication
protocol data stream teaches or suggests a processor operatively connected
5
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
to the receiver and configured to remove a payload data segment from the
payload of the packet and insert pointer information into the packet so as to
generate a stripped-down packet, the pointer information for enabling a
cache downstream of the payload stripper unit to identifY the payload data
segment from the data held by the cache. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Housel col.
11, 11. 5-10, 28-34, and 51---61). This process of replacing segments is
illustrated in Housel's Figure 4, reproduced below.
l SEGMENT THE T.E. 62
l PROTOCOL DATA
I STREAM
CALCULATE
fDE~'TiFIER
64 FIG~ 4~
66
SEGMENT
SAVEDIN ~N_O~·~~~---
CACHE
?
YES
72"[SE.T-CONTROL TO
1 SAVED
74 . .REPLACE SEGMENT WITH IDENTIFIER/
CONTROL
~ SAVE INDICATOR IN
! CACHE
""-~ ~-
SET CONTROL TO
NEW
INCORPORATE
SEGMENT/CONTROL•
68
10
76
Housel's Figure 4 illustrates a calculation (step 64) of an identifier for
a segment of a data stream, a determination whether the segment is saved in
cache (step 66), and the replacement of the segment with the identifier (step
74) in the event that the segment is saved in cache.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Housel merely
replaces a segment of a terminal emulator protocol stream "with pointers,
6
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
and then packetiz[es] the resulting stream." App. Br. 10. Appellants argue
that "[t]he resulting TCP/IP packets in Housel contain a full payload of data,
where the payload is formed from the differenced data stream." Id. Thus,
Appellants argue that "nothing in Housel teaches actual [sic] removing a
payload of an already existing packet to insert pointer information." Id. at
11; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants' arguments are incommensurate with the scope of the
claimed invention, and, therefore, unpersuasive. Specifically, Appellants do
not distinguish sufficiently the claimed packet from Housel' s segment of a
terminal emulator protocol stream. We agree with the Examiner that a
reasonably broad interpretation, in light of the Specification, of the claimed
packet encompasses segments such as those taught or suggested by Housel.
See Ans. 4. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Housel's
replacement of these segments with identifiers of cached data teaches or
suggests:
a processor operatively connected to the receiver and
configured to remove a payload data segment from the payload
of the packet and insert pointer information into the packet so
as to generate a stripped-down packet, the pointer information
for enabling a cache downstream of the payload stripper unit to
identify the payload data segment from the data held by the
cache,
as recited in claim 51.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 51, and claims 52, 54, 59, 77, and 78, which Appellants do not
argue separately with persuasive specificity. See, e.g., App. Br. 10-14. We
also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 53, which
7
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
Appellants argue is patentable for similarly unpersuasive reasons. See App.
Br. 16-17.
Claim 58
In rejecting claim 58, the Examiner finds that Housel's differenced
communication protocol stream teaches or suggests "wherein the payload
stripper is further configured to combine the packets from which payload
data segments have been removed to form an aggregated packet." Final Act.
6 (citing Housel col. 11, 11. 57---65).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because "Housel does not
teach or suggest the claimed stripped-down packets." App. Br. 15.
However, as discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Housel's
replacement of segments with identifiers teaches or suggests the claimed
stripped-down packets.
Appellants also contend that "nothing in the cited section says
anything about forming an aggregated packet." Id. Appellants argue that
nothing in Housel' s "teachings discloses combining packets from which the
payload data segments have been removed (and replaced by pointer
information) to form an aggregated packet." Id.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because, as Appellants
acknowledge, Housel packetizes a stream of segments and replacement
identifiers to produce TCP/IP packets. App. Br. 10; see also Housel col. 8,
11. 40-44 ("Protocol interceptor 46 then transmits (for example, by providing
the differenced communication protocol data stream to a TCP/IP stack of
second computer 30) the differenced communication protocol data stream").
That is, Housel teaches or suggests aggregating replacement identifiers
(packets from which payload data segments have been removed) into
8
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
TCP/IP packets, thus forming aggregate packets. Therefore, Housel teaches
or suggests "wherein the payload stripper is further configured to combine
the packets from which payload data segments have been removed to form
an aggregated packet," as recited in claim 58.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 58.
Claims 40--46, 50, and 76
Claim 40 is directed to how to process a received packet that may
comprise a stripped-down packet (transmitted, for example, using the
process of claim 51 ). In rejecting this claim, the Examiner finds that
Housel' s cache, which processes a received segment that may contain an
identifier to cached data, teaches or suggests that the cache is configured so
that if it is determined that a packet comprises a stripped-down packet in
which the payload thereof contains pointer information identifYing a
payload data segment and it is also determined that the payload data
segment is stored in the storage medium, then using the pointer information
to locate and retrieve the payload data segment from the storage medium,
and insert the retrieved payload data segment into the payload of the packet.
Final Act. 3 (citing Housel col. 11, 11. 42-50, 52---65). Housel's process of
receiving such segments is illustrated in Housel's Figure 5, reproduced
below.
9
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
(BEGIN)
t
$AVE'. SEGMENT lN
-- CACHE
·vES ··86
f R.EPLACE SEGMENT
WlTHCACHE
SEGMENT
1 END
88
INCLUDE NEW
SEGMENT
The Examiner finds and we agree that Housel' s Figure 5 depicts a
process that ascertains, at step 82, whether a segment is a saved segment
(i.e., whether the segment contains an identifier to cached data rather than
the data itself) and, if so, replaces the segment at step 86 with the cached
data, thus reconstructing the full data.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because "Housel' s pointer
information is to data of a terminal emulator protocol stream, and therefore
does not identify or otherwise enable the identification of a payload data
segment." App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants argue that "the
TCP/IP packets of Housel contain a full payload of data ... [because] this
payload itself is formed from the differenced data stream." App. Br. 13.
Appellants also argue that the claimed stripped-down packet is
distinguishable from Housel's "fewer TCP/IP packet[s]." Reply Br. 4--5.
However, Appellants' argument regarding the reconstructed data of Housel
and Housel' s TCP /IP packets are unpersuasive, because these arguments do
not distinguish sufficiently the claimed stripped-down packet from Housel' s
segment replacement identifier.
10
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Housel and McCanne teaches or suggests:
determin[ing] whether the packet comprises a stripped-down
packet in which the payload thereof contains pointer
information identifying a payload data segment;
if so, determin[ing] whether the payload data segment is stored
in the storage medium; and
if so, us[ing] the pointer information to locate and retrieve the
payload data segment from the storage medium, and insert the
retrieved payload data segment into the payload of the packet,
as recited in claim 40.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 40, and claims 41, 44, 50, and 76, which Appellants do not argue
separately with persuasive specificity. See App. Br. 11, 13-14. We also
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claim 42, 43, 45, and
46, which Appellants argue are patentable for similarly unpersuasive
reasons. See App. Br. 16-17.
Claims 60--65, 67-72, 75
Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 60-65, 67-72, and 75,
are similar to their arguments with respect to representative claims 40 and
51. See App. Br. 13, 15-17. For the reasons discussed above, we also
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of these claims.
Claims 47--49, 55-57, 66, 73, and 74
In rejecting claim 47, the Examiner relies on Levine's invalid values
that cause error messages to be returned, in combination with Cain's sending
of an error message, to teach or suggest fall-back parameter designed to
cause the client node to return an error message if the stripped-down packet
reaches the client node. Final Act. 17 (citing Levin col. 44, 11. 20-24; Cain
11
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
col. 2, 11. 51---68). In particular, the Examiner finds that Cain teaches
"sending an error message from the target node to the immediately upstream
node." Final Act. 17.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because, rather than teaching
or suggesting sending an error message from a target node to an immediately
upstream node, "Cain explicitly teaches the error message is sent from the
node immediately upstream from where the cluster level failure occurred."
App. Br. 20 (citing Cain col. 2, 11. 51-58). Thus, Appellants argue, "Cain's
error message transmission does not occur from the site of the error." App.
Br. 20.
Appellants' arguments are consistent with the cited teachings and
suggestions of Cain. See Cain col. 2, 11. 51-58. Furthermore, the Examiner
does not present additional findings that show other portions of Cain, or the
other cited references, cure this deficiency in Cain. Therefore, we agree
with Appellants that the Examiner's findings do not show that the
combination of Housel, McCanne, Gandhi, Levine, and Cain teaches or
suggests a "fall-back parameter designed to cause the client node to return
an error message if the stripped-down packet reaches the client node," as
recited in claim 4 7.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 47, and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 48, 49, 55-57, 66, 73, and 74, which contain similar recitations.
12
Appeal2014-009412
Application 13/376,755
DECISION2
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 40-46, 50-54,
58---65,67-72, 75-78.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 47--49, 55-57,
66, 73, and 74.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2 In the event of further prosecution, we recommend the Examiner ascertain
whether claim 58 meets all the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Claim 58
refers to "the packets from which payload data segments have been
removed." However, claim 51, from which claim 5 8 depends, only recites a
packet (singular) and a stripped-down packet (also singular). We
recommend the Examiner ascertain whether a proper, unambiguous
antecedent basis for the claim 58 packets from which payload data segments
have been removed is recited.
13