Ex Parte van Haalen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2014

11126504 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 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.
11/126,504 05/11/2005 Ronald van Haalen R van Haalen 3-11 4235
46363 7590 06/13/2014
WALL & TONG, LLP/
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
25 James Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
O CONNOR, BRIAN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2475
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2014 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 RONALD VAN HAALEN
and ARIE JOHANNES DE HEER
____________

Appeal 2012-000400
Application 11/126,504
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR.,
and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-000400
Application 11/126,504

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are the only claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A method for configuring a spanning tree in a network
comprising a plurality of bridges and a plurality of links,
comprising:
determining network topology information for at least a
portion of said network;
computing said spanning tree using said network
topology information;
determining spanning tree parameters for said computed
spanning tree, wherein said spanning tree parameters are
adapted for use in establishing said spanning tree within said
network; and
transmitting said spanning tree parameters toward at least
a portion of said bridges for use in establishing said computed
spanning tree within said network.

Prior Art
Sridhar US 7,149,795 B2 Dec. 12, 2006
Kaluve US 7,177,946 B1 Feb. 13, 2007
Sankaran US 7,701,881 B1 Apr. 20, 2010

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaluve and Sridhar.
Appeal 2012-000400
Application 11/126,504

3
Claims 2, 13, 14, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kaluve, Sridhar, and Sankaran.

ANALYSIS
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 conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants contend Kaluve does not teach computing the spanning
tree before determining parameters for the computed spanning tree, as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 9. Page 10 of Appellants’ Specification
discloses an example of computing a spanning tree as determining at least
one active spanning tree segment (ASTS). The scope of “computing said
spanning tree” encompasses determining a single active spanning tree
segment (Spec. 10:11), where an active spanning tree segment is a
communication path between two bridges operable for transporting traffic
over the spanning tree (Spec. 7:2-4). Page 11 of Appellants’ Specification
discloses examples of determined parameters such as a bridge priority, a
path cost, a hello time, maximum wait time, forward delay, transmit hold
count, and port state. The scope of “determining spanning tree parameters
for said computed spanning tree,” when read in light of page 11 of
Appellants’ Specification, encompasses determining a bridge priority, a path
cost, and a bridge state.
Column 2, lines 9-26 of Kaluve teach specifying a root bridge and
electing a designated bridge closest to the root bridge, which, when read in
Appeal 2012-000400
Application 11/126,504

4
light of page 10 of Appellants’ Specification, teaches “computing said
spanning tree using said network topology information,” within the meaning
of claim 1. This section of Kaluve also teaches each bridge selecting a root
port which gives the lowest cost path to the root. The scope of “determining
spanning tree parameters for said computed spanning tree,” when read in
light of page 11 of Appellants’ Specification, encompasses each bridge
selecting a port with the lowest path cost (“parameters”) to the specified
(“computed”) root bridge as taught by Kaluve. Thus, Appellants’ contention
that Kaluve does not teach computing the spanning tree before determining
parameters for the computed spanning tree is inconsistent with the teachings
of Kaluve.
Appellants contend Kaluve does not teach computing a spanning tree
using network topology information as required by claim 1. App. Br. 10.
Appellants’ contention is inconsistent with column 2 lines 9-26 of Kaluve as
discussed above.
Appellants contend Kaluve computes the spanning tree while
establishing the spanning tree, rather than computing the spanning tree
before establishing the spanning tree as required by claim 1. App. Br. 10-
12; Reply Br. 2-5. Claim 1 recites “determining spanning tree parameters
. . . for use in establishing said spanning tree” and “transmitting said
spanning tree parameters . . . for use in establishing said computed spanning
tree.” The claim does not positively recite an active step of establishing a
spanning tree, but rather lists establishing as an intended use of the
parameters. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument
showing that the intended use of establishing is entitled to patentable weight.
Appellants’ contention is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Appeal 2012-000400
Application 11/126,504

5
However, even giving weight to “for use in establishing,” the spanning tree
of Kaluve is not “established” until the switch 212 receives a message with
an agreement flag from a neighboring switch as taught by Kaluve (col. 9, ll.
22-34), which is after the spanning tree is “computed.” Therefore,
Appellants’ contention is inconsistent with the teachings of Kaluve.
Further, Appellants’ contention (App. Br. 11-12) that the whole
spanning tree must be computed before establishing the spanning tree is
based on the premise that every segment of the spanning tree must be
computed before determining spanning tree parameters. However,
Appellants’ contention is not commensurate with the scope of “computing
said spanning tree” recited in claim 1 which, when read in light of
Appellants’ Specification, encompasses determining only one active
spanning tree segment, such as a communication path between two bridges
as taught by Kaluve.
Appellants contend Kaluve does not teach “determining spanning tree
parameters for said computed spanning tree, wherein said spanning tree
parameters are adapted for use in establishing said spanning tree within said
network.” App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 5-6. Appellants’ contention is
inconsistent with column 2, lines 9-26 of Kaluve as discussed above.
Appellants contend Sridhar does not teach “determining spanning tree
parameters for said computed spanning tree, wherein said spanning tree
parameters are adapted for use in establishing said spanning tree within said
network.” App. Br. 13-14. In particular, Appellants contend Sridhar does
not teach spanning tree parameters such as port state, bridge priority, and
link cost. Id. Appellants’ contention is inconsistent with column 13, lines
33-35 of Sridhar, which teaches “the path to QoS processor 110D is of
Appeal 2012-000400
Application 11/126,504

6
lower cost (in the spanning tree algorithm) than the path to QoS processor
110E,” which, when read in light of page 11 of Appellants’ Specification,
teaches “determining spanning tree parameters” within the meaning of claim
1.
Further, the content of the data for the “spanning tree” computed in
claim 1 does not affect any subsequent steps or structural limitations of the
method recited in claim 1. Labeling the computed data a “spanning tree” is
merely a non-functional description of the data. Similarly, the content of the
“spanning tree parameters” that are determined and transmitted in the
method of claim 1 does not affect any steps or structural limitations of the
method recited in claim 1. Labeling the determined and transmitted data
“spanning tree parameters,” and listing possible uses of the data, such as “for
said computed spanning tree,” and “for use in establishing said spanning
tree,” are merely non-functional descriptions of the data. The scope of claim
1 encompasses “determining network topology information for a least a
portion of said network; computing [first data] using said network topology
information; determining [second data]; and transmitting [second data]
toward at least a portion of said bridges.” Therefore, the content of the
computed “spanning tree” data and the determined and transmitted
“spanning tree parameters” data recited in claim 1 do not distinguish the
claim from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d
1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed.
Cir. 1983). See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI
2008) (precedential).

Appeal 2012-000400
Application 11/126,504

7
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaluve and Sridhar is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 2, 13, 14, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kaluve, Sridhar, and Sankaran is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

msc