Ex Parte Vergnaud et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2013

10647255 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte GERARD VERGNAUD and FRANCIS PINAULT
_____________

Appeal 2012-001483
Application 10/647,255
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-001483
Application 10/647,255
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 9, 11 through 15, 17 through 35, 37 through 41, 43 and
44.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system for use on a server that allocates
network resources to user terminals. See page 2 of Appellants’
Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
1. A processing server for allocating to user terminals
resources of a local area network, said server connected to at
least one local area network access point, said server
comprising:
a control module, which:
classifies the terminals into a first group or a second group
according to whether or not the terminals establish an encrypted
communication with said local area network; and
allocates resources of said local area network to the
terminals attempting to establish communication with said local
area network as a function of whether the terminals are
classified in said first group or said second group,
wherein said control module allocates at least two priority
levels to the terminals for said allocation of resources of the
local area network according to whether the terminals are
classified in said first group or said second group and
automatically modifies an allocated priority level as a function
of the available resources of said local area network.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 9, 11 through 14, 17, 21
through 35, 37 through 40 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hagen (US 2002/0075844 A1, Jun. 20, 2002), Yamaguchi
Appeal 2012-001483
Application 10/647,255
3

(US 2002/0178365 A1, Nov. 28, 2002) and Brewer (US 7,002,980 B1, Feb.
21, 2006, filed Dec. 19, 2000). Answer 5-15.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 15, 18, and 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen, Yamaguchi, Brewer, and Immonen
(US 2002/0132611 A1, Sep. 19, 2002). Answer 15-17.
The Examiner has rejected claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hagen, Yamaguchi, Brewer, and Sisodia (US
2003/0165128 A1, Sep. 4, 2003, filed Jul. 13, 2001). Answer 17-18.
The Examiner has rejected claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hagen, Yamaguchi, Brewer and Bichot (U.S.
2003/0214929 A1, Nov. 20, 2003, filed May 14, 2002). Answer 18.
ISSUE
Appellants argue on page 11 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 is in error.2 Further, Appellants argue that the
rejections of the other pending claims are in error for the same reasons as
claim 1. These arguments present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of the references teaches a control module which
allocates at least two priority levels and automatically modifies an allocated
priority level as a function of the available resources to the local area
network?

ANALYSIS

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
August 18, 2011.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on
April 18, 2011 and Reply Brief filed October 18, 2011.
Appeal 2012-001483
Application 10/647,255
4

We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the references
teach a control module which allocates at least two priority levels and
automatically modifies an allocated priority level as a function of the
available resources to the local area network. The Examiner relies upon
Brewer’s teaching of allocating and adjusting the allocation of bandwidth to
packet queues based upon total available bandwidth to meet this feature.
Answer 19-20. We concur with this analysis.
We note that claim 1 does not define what the priority levels
correspond to. Appellants’ Specification provides several examples of what
priority levels relate to, for example page 4 discusses the “allocation of
bandwidth (or any other priority level),” which suggests that a priority level
is defined by an allocated bandwidth. The Specification also identifies that
priority level can apply to access of local or remote databases, use of
encryption or be based upon MAC address. Specification 4, 6.3 Thus, there
is no express definition of priority level. Within the context of claim 1, we
concur with the Examiner’s finding that the allocation and adjustment of
allocated bandwidth, taught by Brewer, meets the claimed feature of
modifying an allocated priority level. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Similarly, we sustain the Examiner’s

3 We note that Appellants have not identified an embodiment where the
priority is automatically adjusted other than the automatic adjustment of
allocated bandwidth discussed on pages 4 and 6.
Appeal 2012-001483
Application 10/647,255
5

rejections of claims 2 through 9, 11 through 15, 17 through 35, 37 through
41, 43, and 44 which Appellants have not separately argued.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 9, 11 through 15, 17
through 35, 37 through 41, 43 and 44 are 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

tj