Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 5, 2018

13540246 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/540,246 07/02/2012 Ren Wang
73486 7590 09/07/2018
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Intel)
11 S. Meridian Steet
Indianapolis, IN 46204
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.
P27477C/4563 l-258259 4962
EXAMINER
RIV AS, SALVADORE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2018 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):
Inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
INdocket@btlaw.com
inteldocket@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REN WANG, TSUNG-YUAN CHARLES TAI, and
JR-SHIAN TSAI 1
Appeal2018-001054
Application 13/540,246
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, AARON W. MOORE, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Corporation. See
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001054
Application 13/540,246
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 19--26 and 29--33, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Claims 1-18 are canceled. Claims 27 and 28
are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part. 2
THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to coordinating the transmission of data from
a network node to a link partner that is selectively operational in a low
power "sleep" mode by coordinating a sleep duration of the link partner
based on data buffering capabilities of the network node. See generally
Spec. 1 (Background), Abstract. Claims 19 and 32, reproduced below, are
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
19. Computer-readable memory storing one or more instructions
that when executed by a machine result in execution of
operations to:
determine a time value, said operations to determine the
time value comprising operations to:
determine a parameter of a first time duration based,
at least in part, on an transmit buff er amount;
cause transmission of the parameter of the first time
duration to a link partner;
receive a second time duration indicating a resume
latency period from the link partner;
cause transmission of a wake signal to the link
partner; and
2 We refer to the Specification, filed July 2, 2012 ("Spec."); the Final Office
Action, mailed Nov. 21, 2014 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief, filed March
8, 2016 and amended on May 8, 2017 ("App. Br."); and the Examiner's
Answer, mailed Sept. 11, 2017 ("Ans."). The Reply Brief filed Nov. 10,
2017 is noted but it is not cited herein.
2
Appeal2018-001054
Application 13/540,246
based, at least in part, on the determined time value,
( 1) buffer packets destined for the link partner in the
transmit buffer, and (2) delay transmission of the packets
to the link partner until after the transmission of the wake
signal to the link partner.
32. A system to communicate with an Ethernet link partner,
compnsmg:
circuitry, when operational, to:
buffer Ethernet packets destined for the Ethernet link
partner based at least in part on, an amount of transmit buffer
available to buffer Ethernet packets and a resume latency period
received from the Ethernet link partner, the resume latency
period to permit the Ethernet link partner to return to a higher
power consumption state from lower power consumption state;
cause transmission of a wake signal to the Ethernet link
partner to permit the Ethernet link partner to return to the higher
power consumption state from the lower power consumption
state, wherein the circuitry to cause transmission of the wake
signal comprises circuitry to cause transmission of the wake
signal based at least in part on, the amount of transmit buff er
available to buffer Ethernet packets and the resume latency
period received from the Ethernet link partner; and
cause transmission of the Ethernet packets to the Ethernet
link partner after transmission of the wake signal to the Ethernet
link partner.
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Harumoto et al.
Wolff
Samuels et al.
Keddy et al.
Bahl et al.
Riley
Lindoff et al.
US 2002/0004840 Al
US 6,408,006 B 1
US 2005/0063302 Al
US 2005/0147082 Al
US 2005/0208958 Al
US 2005/0238035 Al
US 2008/0159183 Al
3
Jan. 10,2002
June 18, 2002
Mar. 24, 2005
July 7, 2005
Sept. 22, 2005
Oct. 27, 2005
July 3, 2008
Appeal2018-001054
Application 13/540,246
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 19, 22, 24, 29, and 31 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wolff and Lindoff. Final Act. 3-13.
Claims 21 and 26 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wolff, Lindoff, and Bahl. Final Act. 13-16.
Claims 20 and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wolff, Lindoff, and Samuels. Final Act. 16-17.
Claim 25 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wolff, Lindoff, and Harumoto. Final Act. 17-18.
Claim 30 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wolff, Lindoff, and Riley. Final Act. 18-19.
Claim 32 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lindoff, Keddy, and Wolff. Final Act. 19-23.
Claim 33 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lindoff, Keddy, Wolff, and Bahl. Final Act. 23-24.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 19, 22, and 29
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 19,
22, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wolff and
Lindoff. We agree with Appellants' conclusions as to this rejection of the
claims.
The Examiner finds Wolff's scheduling algorithm that establishes a
packet age limit Tq in a queue, teaches or suggests determining a time value.
4
Appeal2018-001054
Application 13/540,246
Final Act. 4. The Examiner equates Wolff s timestamp with the first time
parameter. Ans. 3. Appellants argue Wolff's "Tq is [not] arrived at by the
[ recited] operations ... ( e.g., determining the first time duration parameter,
sending the parameter to the link partner, etc.)." App. Br. 10. The Examiner
responds, explaining Wolff determines an optimal buffering that is used to
set a buffer limit for a queue which takes into account a timestamp of a
frame or a cell at the head of the queue, transmission line speed, and an
aging limit. Ans. 2-3.
Appellants' contention is persuasive of Examiner error. The disputed
time value (equated to Wolffs scheduling algorithm's package age limit) is
determined by determining a parameter of a first time duration based, at least
in part, on a transmit buffer amount. Claim 19. According to Appellants,
the transmit buffer amount is described at page 7, lines 10-27 of the
Specification. App. Br. 2 (Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter).
Therein is described computing a maximum time that a node is able to buffer
packets Tu = Bu/Su, wherein Bu is the storage size of a buff er and Su is an
incoming packet transmission rate. Spec. p. 7, 11. 20-25. Thus, the recited
transmit buffer amount includes a buffer storage size. Therefore, in
determining a parameter of a first time duration so as to determine the
disputed time value, the parameter of the first time duration must be based
on a transmit buffer amount (e.g., Tu) such as a storage size of a buffer (e.g.,
Bu). However, the Examiner fails to show that Wolffs packet age limit Tq
is determined by determining a parameter of a first time duration (i.e.,
Wolffs time stamp Pqx, Hq, or C (see Ans. 3)) based on a transmit buffer
amount. Furthermore, Appellants' parameter of a first time duration is
disclosed as a value used to determine a maximum time a node is able to
5
Appeal2018-001054
Application 13/540,246
buff er packets such as buff er size Bu and incoming packet rate Su. Thus, the
recited time duration is a measurement of elapsed time, not a clock time as
indicated by Wolff's time stamps. Therefore, for the reasons discussed, we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 19 or, for the same reasons,
the rejection of independent claims 22 and 29, which include corresponding
limitations. Further, we do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims
20-22, 23-26, 30, and 31 which stand with their respective base claims.
Independent Claim 3 2
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive in connection with the
rejection of independent claim 32. In connection therewith we adopt as our
own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 19-23) and (2) the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief (Ans. 7-9), and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants first contend the rejection is deficient in that it "equates the
base station of Lindoff with the recited Ethernet link partner [ of claim 32]"
and because Lindoff fails to disclose the base station communicates using
Ethernet. App. Br. 12. The Examiner responds that Appellants' argument is
an improper attack on Lindo ff individually when the rejection is based on
the combination of references. Ans. 7 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The
Examiner explains Keddy's disclosure of an Ethernet computer network is
relied upon for the disputed limitation. Ans. 8 ( citing Keddy Absract, Fig. 1,
,r 9, claim 2 ).
6
Appeal2018-001054
Application 13/540,246
We agree with the Examiner in finding Keddy's disclosure of an
Ethernet network in combination with buffering of downlink (DL) packets
performed by Lindo ff' s node B teaches or suggests the disputed buffering of
Ethernet packets destined for an Ethernet partner as required by claim 32.
Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence or argument to the contrary,
Appellants first contention is unpersuasive.
Appellants further contend "[t]ransmitting a DL packet in response to
receipt of [ an uplink] UL request [ as disclosed by LindoffJ cannot
reasonably be equated with buffering Ethernet packets based at least in part
on a resume latency period received from the Ethernet link partner." App.
Br. 12. Appellants' contention is unpersuasive because it is both conclusory
and fails to address the Examiner's findings. In particular, Appellants fail to
explain why Lindoff s UL request is deficient in disclosing the argued
limitation. Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements unsupported
by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
The Examiner finds Lindoff' s node B buffers packets until receiving a
UL scheduling request from user equipment (UE) so as to reduce power
consumption. Ans. 7-8 (citing Lindoff,I 63). Appellants do not explain
how they arrive at their conclusion that Lindoff' s buffer fails to teach or
suggest the disputed limitation. Furthermore, Appellants fail to address
Keddy's use of a heartbeat to control a power state of a physical layer (PHY)
device, found by the Examiner to "teach the resume latency period to permit
the Ethernet link partner to return to a higher power consumption state from
lower power consumption state." Final Act. 21. Still further, as explained
7
Appeal2018-001054
Application 13/540,246
by the Examiner (Ans. 7-9), Appellants' attacks focusing on Lindoff and
Keddy individually fail to consider the teachings of the applied combination
of references. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence or argument
to the contrary, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 32 together
with the rejection of dependent claim 33, which is not argued separately with
particularity.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 19-26 and 29-31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 32 and 33 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8