Ex Parte Viswanathan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

13370443 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/370,443 02/10/2012
46363 7590 08/12/2016
Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
12 Christopher Way
Suite 105
Eatontown, NJ 07724
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
RAMESH VISWANATHAN
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.
810427-US-NP 1776
EXAMINER
NAOREEN, NAZIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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@trbklaw.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAMESH VISWANATHAN, ADISESHU HARI,
YUH-JYE CHANG, and T.V. LAKSHMAN
Appeal2015-002275
Application 13/370,443
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002275
Application 13/370,443
l. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "matching of offers
and requests to facilitate sharing of resources" (Spec. 1, 11. 5-7).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor and a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, the
processor configured to:
receive one or more resource specifications associated with a plurality of
elements, wherein the one or more resource specifications comprise, for
each of the elements, a resource request comprising an indication of a
quantity of resources requested by the element and a resource offer
comprising an indication of a quantity of resources offered by the element
for use by one or more other elements;
construct a maximum flow resource graph based on the one or more
resource specifications; and
apply a maximum flow process to the maximum flow resource graph to
determine thereby a resource assignment, the resource assignment
2
Appeal2015-002275
Application 13/370,443
comprising an indication of an association between the resources requests
and the resource offers.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Feng US 7,924,718 B2 Apr. 12, 2011
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Feng.
II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
finding Feng discloses receiving a "resource specification" comprising "a
resource request comprising an indication of a quantity of resource
requested" and "a resource oj]er comprising an indication of a quantity of
resources offered" and applying a "maximum flow process" to "determine
thereby a resource assignment ... comprising an indication of an association
between the resource requests and the resource offers" (claim 1, emphases
added).
III. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend "Feng include[s] only general references to
resources and resource control" (App. Br. 13, emphasis omitted), and
"do [es] not mention a resource request or a resource off er" (App. Br. 15,
emphasis omitted). Thus, Appellants contend "Feng is devoid of any
teaching or suggestion of constructing a maximum flow resource graph,
3
Appeal2015-002275
Application 13/370,443
much less constructing a maximum flow resource graph based on one or
more resource specifications ... "as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 16).
Appellants also contend, Feng also fails to disclose a "determination of a
resource assignment," much less one that "included an indication of an
association between resource requests and resource offers defined," as
recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 18, emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellants that the preponderance of evidence on this
record fails to support the Examiner's finding that Appellants' claim 1, as set
forth before us in this Appeal, is anticipated by Feng under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Although we agree with the Examiner's finding that "Feng teaches a
workflow related information system which makes communication resource
allocation decision among neighboring elements" (Ans. 2), we cannot find
any clear disclosure in the sections of Feng referenced by the Examiner of
receiving a "resource specification" comprising, for each of the elements, "a
resource request comprising an indication of a quantity of resource
requested" and "a resource offer comprising an indication of a quantity of
resources offered" and applying a "maximum flow process" to "determine
thereby a resource assignment ... comprising an indication of an association
between the resource requests and the resource offers" (claim 1, emphases
added), as required in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Here, as Appellants contend, "Feng is devoid of any teaching or
suggestion of constructing a maximum flow resource graph, much less
constructing a maximum flow resource graph based on one or more resource
specifications ... " (App. Br. 16). As Appellants also contend, Feng also
fails to teach or suggest a "determination of resource assignment," which
4
Appeal2015-002275
Application 13/370,443
"includes an indication of an association between resource requests and
resource offers defined" (App. Br. 18, emphasis omitted). We are of the
view that the Examiner has not fully developed the record to show express
or inherent anticipation regarding the disputed limitations of claim 1
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 1 Therefore, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1 and independent claims 5
standing therewith (App. Br. 9), as well as claims 2--4, and 6-8 respectively
depending therefrom, over Feng.
Independent claims 9 and 15 similarly recite receiving "resource
specification" comprising, for each of the elements, "a resource request
comprising an indication of a quantity of resource requested" and "a
resource offer comprising an indication of a quantity of resources offered"
(claim 9). However, the Examiner does not provide findings for claims 9
and 15 separate from claim 1. Accordingly, we also reverse the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 9 and 15 standing with claim 1, as well as
claims 10-14, and 16-20 respectively depending therefrom, over Feng.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
1 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider
whether claims 1-20 should instead be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
and to explain how the above-discussed deficiencies of Feng would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the Board is
authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should
be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
5
Appeal2015-002275
Application 13/370,443
REVERSED
6