Ex Parte van Haalen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2012

11318894 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2012)

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.
11/318,894 12/27/2005 Ronald van Haalen Haalen (LCNT/127354) 6254
46363 7590 09/07/2012
WALL & TONG, LLP/
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
25 James Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
CAMPBELL, MATTHEW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2012 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 RONALD VAN HAALEN
________________

Appeal 2010-004747
Application 11/318,894
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004747
Application 11/318,894

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 – 10 and 12 – 20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to a method and apparatus for performing packet
policing by operating an input queue as a leaky bucket. See Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
1. A method for performing packet policing for a packet,
comprising:
receiving the packet;
storing the packet in a shared memory shared by a virtual
input queue and a virtual output queue;
generating a packet pointer for the packet, wherein the
packet pointer is adapted for use in retrieving the packet from
the shared memory;
storing the packet pointer in the virtual input queue,
wherein the virtual input queue operates as a leaky bucket
queue;
transferring the packet pointer from the virtual input
queue to the virtual output removing the packet pointer from
the virtual output queue;

1 The Examiner lists dependent claim 11 as being rejected. See Fin. Rej.
(Feb. 26, 2009). However, the Examiner fails to establish any ground of
rejection for claim 1. See id. at 2 – 13; see also Ans. 4 – 19. We consider this
oversight to be harmless error and request that it be addressed in the event of
further prosecution.
Appeal 2010-004747
Application 11/318,894

3
retrieving the packet from the shared memory using the
packet pointer; and transmitting the packet.
(Emphasis added).
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3 – 10, 12 – 18, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamai (US 2002/0131419 A1;
Sept. 19, 2002) and Jones (US 6,590,901 B1; Jul. 8, 2003). Ans. 4 – 13.
The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tamai, Jones, and Dohm (US 2006/0104275 A1;
May 18, 2006; filed Nov. 17, 2004).
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Tamai teaches or suggests a
leaky bucket queue, as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that it would not have been obvious
to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of
Tamai and Jones?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner relies on Tamai to teach or suggest a queue that
operates as a leaky bucket queue. See Ans. 4 (citing Tamai ¶¶ [0048] and
[0051]). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Tamai’s teaching of discarding
pointers from the head of a queue when the number of pointers exceeds a
predetermined threshold value teaches or suggests the claimed leaky bucket.
See id.; see also Tamai ¶ [0048].
Appeal 2010-004747
Application 11/318,894

4
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because Tamai discards
data in the queue, whereas a leaky bucket queue discards data before it
enters the queue. See App. Br. 12 – 14. Appellant points to the Specification
as providing a description of a leaky bucket queue in which content is
discarded before it enters the queue, rather than from the queue, when the
queue is full. See App. Br. 12 – 13 (citing Spec. 3, ll. 10 – 27); see also
Reply Br. 2. However, the Specification does not clearly define a “leaky
bucket queue” as using this particular approach for discarding excess data.
The claim also does not have limitations specifically directed to discarding
data before it enters the leaky bucket queue. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the claim recitation of a “leaky bucket queue,” given a broad,
but reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, includes queues
which discard content from the queue when it overflows (e.g., when the
number of items in the queue exceeds a predetermined threshold). See Ans.
16. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Tamai teaches or suggests a
leaky bucket queue, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4.
The Examiner further relies on Jones to teach or suggest transferring a
packet pointer from an input queue to an output queue. Ans. 5. Appellant
contends that the Examiner erred because modifying Tamai by replacing the
single set of multicast queues of Tamai with the input queues and output
queues of Jones would require substantial reconstruction and redesign of the
system of Tamai, which would change the principle of operation of Tamai.
See App. Br. 15 – 17; see also Reply Br. 6 – 7. However, the Examiner
correctly notes that (1) Tamai is not relied on for teachings specific to
multicasting and (2) Tamai’s teachings are directed to queues for output
ports, not input ports. See Ans. 18 (citing Tamai ¶ [0049]). We agree with
Appeal 2010-004747
Application 11/318,894

5
the Examiner that augmenting Tamai by adding input queues at the input
ports, and transferring data from the input queues to the output queues,
would not require replacing Tamai’s output queues. See id. Thus, combining
the teachings and suggestions of Tamai and Jones would not require
substantial reconstruction and redesign of the system of Tamai nor would it
change the principle of operation of Tamai. Therefore, we find that the
Examiner did not err in finding that it would have been obvious to an artisan
of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of Tamai and
Jones.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2 – 9, which
are not argued separately with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 12 – 17
and 28.
Claim 10
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10,
essentially presenting the same arguments presented for claim 1. See App.
Br. 17 – 22. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the
Examiner 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10. We also sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 12 – 16, which are not argued separately
with sufficient specificity. See id.
Claim 17
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17,
essentially presenting the same arguments presented for claim 1. See App.
Br. 22 – 28. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the
Examiner 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 17. We also sustain the
Appeal 2010-004747
Application 11/318,894

6
Examiner’s rejections of claims 18 – 20, which are not argued separately
with sufficient specificity. See id.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 10 and 12 – 20 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

ke