Ex Parte Twiss

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

10544277 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

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.
10/544,277 12/23/2005 Adam Twiss ALC 3520 1316
76614 7590 03/30/2017
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
MAI, KEVIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 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):
mail@krameramado.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM TWISS
Appeal 2016-0005401
Application 10/544,2772
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 75—89, 92—105, 108, 110-115, 117—123, and 126.
Claims 1-74, 90, 91, 106, 107, 109, 116, 124, 125, and 127-148 have been
canceled. Claims App’x. . We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE3.
1 The real party in interest is Alcatel-Lucent. App. Br. 1.
2 We previously AFFIRMED a prior version of these claims in Appeal
2011-006815, dated March 18, 2014.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Final Rejection (mailed March 26, 2015, “Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 6, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
Appeal 2016-000540
Application 10/544,277
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to routing and caching systems for reducing the
bandwidth used by decentralized peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks.
See Abstract.
Claims 75, 92, and 110 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 75, which is
reproduced below:
75. A method of reducing traffic in a decentralized peer-to-
peer network, said decentralized peer-to-peer network operating
over an underlying network comprising first and second
network portions, the method comprising:
identifying, with an Internet Service Provider (ISP)
router, whether messages in the first network portion are peer-
to-peer messages or other messages;
routing all peer-to-peer messages in the first network
portion with an intended destination in the second network
portion outside of a network of an Internet Service Provider
(ISP) to a gateway between peer-to-peer nodes residing on said
first and second network portions; and
controlling transport of said peer-to-peer messages at said
gateway to limit propagation of said peer-to-peer messages into
said second network portion,
wherein the other messages directly flow from the ISP
router into the second network portion, while the peer-to-peer
messages only flow through the gateway into the second
network portion.
(mailed Sept. 24, 2015, “Ans.”), the Reply Brief (filed Oct. 6, 2015, “Reply
Br.”), and the Specification (filed Aug. 3, 2005, “Spec.” published as WO
2004/073281 A2, “W0281”).
2
Appeal 2016-000540
Application 10/544,277
To reject the claims on appeal, the Examiner relies upon:
Aviani, Jr. et al.
Scott et al.
Bowman
Teodosiu et al.
Yeager et al.
Matsubara et al.
US 2006/0117093 Al
US 2002/0049760 Al
US 2003/0208621 Al
US 2002/0062375 Al
US 2004/0088646 Al
US 2004/0148434 Al
Priority Oct. 29, 1998
Pub. Apr. 25, 2002
Filed May 6, 2002
Pub. May 23, 2002
Filed Oct. 31,2002
Filed Jan. 24, 2003
The claims stand rejected as follows:4
1. Claims 75-89, 92-105, 108, 110-115, 117-123, and 126 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (first paragraph), as failing to comply
with the written description requirement.5 Final Act. 5.
2. Claims 75-89, 92-105, 108, 110-115, 117-123, and 126 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (second paragraph), as indefinite.
Final Act. 5—6.
3. Claims 92—105, 108, 110-115, 117—123, and 126 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112 (sixth paragraph). Final Act. 6.6
4. Claims 75—80, 87, 92—97, 108, 110-113, 123, and 126 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as unpatentable over Bowman. Final Act.
7-19.
4 Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.37(c)(l)(vii).
5 The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
provisions. Final Act. 2.
6 Appellant presents rebuttal arguments against the rejection of Claims 92—
105, 108, 110-115, 117-123, and 126 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (sixth
paragraph) (see App. Br. 5). Because the rejection is not reproduced in the
Examiner’s Answer ( See Ans. 2), we, presume this ground to have been be
withdrawn. Consequently, we do not reach the merits thereof.
3
Appeal 2016-000540
Application 10/544,277
5. Claims 81, 83, 86, 98, 100, 103, 114, 117, and 120 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as unpatentable over Bowman and
Teodosiu. Final Act. 19—25.
6. Claims 82, 99, and 115 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
unpatentable over Bowman and Matsubara. Final Act. 26—27.
7. Claims 84, 101, and 118 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
unpatentable over Bowman, Teodosiu, and Scott. Final Act. 28—29.
8. Claims 85, 102, and 119 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
unpatentable over Bowman, Teodosiu, and Matsubara. Final Act. 29-
30.
9. Claims 88, 89, 104, 105, 121, and 122 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as unpatentable over Bowman and Yeager. Final Act. 30-
34.
10. Claims 75—80, 87, 92—97, 108, 110—113, 123, and 126 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as unpatentable over Bowman and Aviani.
Final Act. 34—37.
11. Claims 81, 83, 86, 98, 100, 103, 114, 117, and 120 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as unpatentable over Bowman, Aviani, and
Teodosiu. Final Act. 37.
12. Claims 82, 99, and 115 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
unpatentable over Bowman, Aviani, and Matsubara. Final Act. 37.
13. Claims 84, 101, and 118 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
unpatentable over Bowman, Aviani, Teodosiu, and Scott. Final Act.
37.
14. Claims 85, 102, and 119 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
unpatentable over Bowman, Aviani, Teodosiu, and Matsubara. Final
4
Appeal 2016-000540
Application 10/544,277
Act. 37.
15. Claims 88, 89, 104, 105, 121, and 122 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as unpatentable over Bowman, Aviani, and Yeager. Final
Act. 37.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 75—89, 92—105, 108, 110-
115, 117—123, and 126 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred. We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4—14.
Claims 75-89,92-105,108,110-115,117-123, and 126:
Written Description and Indefiniteness
The Examiner finds the independent claims have been amended to
recite “while the peer-to-peer messages only flow through the gateway into
the second network Portion.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds the
Specification lacks written description support for this recitation and thus,
stand rejected under § 112(1st |). Id. The Examiner finds the written
description fails to describe “structure, material or acts” to perform the
accused limitation and so fails §112(6th |). Id. at 6. The Examiner finds that
no particular message only flows through the gateway because all traffic
flows through the ISP router as well. Id. (citing Spec., Figs. 4c, 5). Thus,
the claims stand rejected under §112(2nd |). Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner misconstrues the plain meaning of
the claim language: “the other messages directly flow from the ISP router
into the second network portion, while the peer-to-peer messages only flow
5
Appeal 2016-000540
Application 10/544,277
through the gateway into the second network portion.” App. Br. 4.
Appellant argues non-P2P traffic flows from router 506 directly to ISP-
router 414, whereas, P2P traffic flows from router 506, first to P2P-caching,
gateway-router 408 and thence to ISP-router 414. Id. (citing Spec., Fig. 5).
The Examiner finds the Claim 75 requires that P2P traffic flows only
through the gateway router, but that this is not supported by the
Specification, as the traffic also flows through other routers. Ans. 5. The
Examiner construes the claims to require P2P to traverse only the single
gateway-router, i.e., P2P-caching, gateway-router 408. Id. at 6.
The Examiner’s construction precludes P2P traffic from flowing through
ISP-router 414, router 506, or any other router of which the internet may be
comprised. We disagree. When the claims are read in light of the
Specification, we find Appellant discloses a clear separation of P2P from
non-P2P traffic where P2P traffic traverses ISP router 414. Spec. 19—20
(“[n]on P2P traffic from router 414 is routed directly to internet 416 whilst
P2P traffic is routed to P2P caching router 408 and thence to internet 416”).
We find Figure 5 depicts a clear separation of the routing of P2P from non-
P2P traffic. We find Figure 5 discloses all traffic traverses a plurality of
routers, but that P2P traffic, but not non-P2P traffic, further traverses P2P-
caching, gateway-router 408. With reference to Figure 5, Appellant
discloses ISP router 414 and P2P gateway 408 are coupled to a common
router 506 which connects the ISP to a backbone or core network 508. Id. at
20. Router 506 separates incoming P2P traffic from non-P2P traffic for
gateway 408 in a similar way to that in which router 414 handles outgoing
P2P traffic. Id.
6
Appeal 2016-000540
Application 10/544,277
We find the claims convey the separation of P2P from non-P2P traffic
with sufficient clarity so as not to be indefinite and the Specification
adequately discloses sufficient materials and structure to inform a person of
ordinary skill in the art. We find the Claims comport with the requirements
of 35 U.S.C. §112111,2, and 6.
Claims 75-80, 87,92-97,108,110-113,123, and 126:
Obviousness over Bowman and over Bowman-Aviani
Differential flow of P2P and nonP2P messages.
Appellant contends that neither Bowman, nor the Bowman-Aviani
combination, teaches “wherein the other messages directly flow from the
ISP router into the second network portion, while the peer-to-peer messages
only flow through the gateway into the second network portion,” as recited
in independent Claim 75, and as similarly recited in independent Claims 92
and 110. App. Br. 7.
The Examiner finds Bowman teaches that distribution router 24 sends
only P2P traffic to one or more PPO 10. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds
because the distribution router sends only P2P messages to the PPO,
although unstated, it must follow that the other traffic must flow directly
from the ISP router. Id. (citing Bowman | 53, Fig. 3). The Examiner finds
Claim 75 recites “identifying, with an Internet Service Provider (ISP) router,
whether messages in the first network portion are peer-to-peer messages or
other messages.” Id. Accordingly, the Examiner finds, all traffic flows
through the ISP router, but that, the claims do not discuss a separate
connection to the second network portion. Id.
Appellant replies the plain meaning of the claim language segregates
7
Appeal 2016-000540
Application 10/544,277
traffic outbound from the ISP router. Reply Br. 1. Such that “the other
[(i.e., non-P2P)] messages directly flow from the ISP router into the second
network portion,” whereas, “the peer-to-peer messages only[,] flow through
the gateway into the second network portion.” Id. Appellant argues this
limitation is depicted in Specification Figure 5. Id. As discussed above, in
the § 112 context, we agree with Appellant.
The Examiner finds distribution router 24 sends only P2P messages to
the PPO and, therefore, all other traffic must flow directly from the ISP
router out to the web. Ans. 7 (citing Bowman | 53, Fig. 3). We read
Bowman differently than does the Examiner. Bowman teaches that a
“WCCP module 112 operates with the Cisco Web Cache Communication
Protocol (WCCP) to ensure that a router, such as distribution router 24 of
FIG. 3 sends only P2P communications to one or more PPO’s 10.” Bowman
1 53. This teaching of Bowman does not relate to segregation of outbound
traffic. A PPO is not a router, rather, a PPO is “a peer to peer path optimizer
(PPO).” Bowman 11. Bowman teaches:
In network 50, PPO 10 examines search requests sent to central
server 42. If PPO 10 is aware of the requested file, it will
provide the requester with a cost efficient path to the file. If
PPO 10 is not aware of the file it will utilize alternatives to
direct the requestor to the file. ... In determining which node
14 to direct the request to, PPO 10 makes use of cost class
information.
Bowman 146.
Bowman shows that, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 7), all traffic,
outbound from ISP network 12a, passes through distribution router 24 and
thence through router 26 onwards to the external web (networks 12b .. .
12n). Bowman, Fig. 3. However the claims require that outbound traffic
8
Appeal 2016-000540
Application 10/544,277
traverses ISP router 414 following which “the peer-to-peer messages only
flow through the gateway [P2P Gateway 408] into the second network
portion,” but “the other [non-P2P] messages directly flow from the ISP
router [414] into the second network portion.” Such bifurcation is not taught
by Bowman, nor does the Examiner cite Aviani for such teaching. See Ans.
9.
Regarding grounds of rejections 5—15, set forth above, the
Examiner stands on the grounds over Bowman, as discussed above. Ans.
13—14. In view of our prior discussion, we decline to sustain these
rejections.
DECISION
The rejections of Claims 75—89, 92—105, 108, 110-115, 117—123, and
126, as set forth above, are REVERSED.
REVERSED
9