Ex Parte Wee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2013

11255762 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SUSIE J. WEE and JOHN G. APOSTOLOPOULOS
____________

Appeal 2011-013478
Application 11/255,762
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013478
Application 11/255,762

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to streaming media data (Spec. 1:18-19).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. In a network comprising a first node, a second
node, and a communication path between said first and second
nodes, a method of processing data at said first node, said
method comprising:

accessing data comprising a plurality of data packets; and

processing said data according to information about said
data, according to information about said first node and said
second node, and according to network observation information
about said network, said network observation information
descriptive of conditions in said network, wherein said
information about said data for a particular data packet of said
plurality of data packets remains constant for said data packet.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Syvanne

Caronni

Smith
U.S. 2002/0112188 A1

U.S. 2002/0143850 A1

U.S. 2006/0268732 A1
Aug. 15, 2002

Oct. 3, 2002

Nov. 30, 2006

Appeal 2011-013478
Application 11/255,762

3
REJECTION
Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Caronni, Smith, and Syvanne.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11-16, 18-20, 23-25, and 28-30
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellants contend that “Caronni
teaches away from ‘processing said data according to information about said
data . . . wherein said information about said data for a particular data packet
of said plurality of data packets remains constant for said data packet’”
because Caronni’s system updates progress indicators for tracking
processing progress of data packets (App. Br. 11-14). Appellants also
contend that neither Smith nor Syvanne overcomes Caronni’s teaching away
from the disputed feature of information that “remains constant for said data
packet” (See App. Br. 14-17).
Syvanne discloses processing a data packet “by comparing header
information of the data packet to the rules” (Syvanne, ¶ [0046]), which the
Examiner finds meets the limitation of “processing said data according to
information about said data . . . wherein said information . . . remains
constant for said data packet” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 6, 23). As the
Examiner notes (Ans. 22), Appellants do not contend that Syvanne fails to
disclose this feature for which it is relied upon, but rather argue that Caronni
teaches away from Syvanne’s feature of processing a data packet by
comparing the packet’s header with certain rules (See App. Br. 14-17; Reply
Br. 4-7).
Appeal 2011-013478
Application 11/255,762

4
We disagree with Appellants’ argument that Caronni’s disclosure of
updating a progress indicator for tracking the processing progress of a data
packet teaches away from using Syvanne’s header information for
processing a data packet. Caronni discloses “[a] [p]rogress indicator
contains information and references to information enabling the system to
track processing progress. In an embodiment of the present invention the
progress indicator is a data structure that is attached to data packets.”
(Caronni, ¶ [0027]). Appellants have not persuasively shown that the use of
Caronni’s progress indicator in a data packet precludes processing the data
packet by using some other, unchanging information in the packet header.
Rather, we see no incompatibility between the two separate, complementary
functions provided by Syvanne’s data packet header information, which is
used to determine what processing to do, and Caronni’s progress indicator,
which is used to keep track of the processing that has been done.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2, 9, 11-16, 18-20, 23-25, and 28-30 not specifically
argued separately.

Claims 3-8, 10, 17, 21, 22, 26, and 27
Regarding dependent claim 3, Appellants contend that Caronni
teaches away from “using information about said network to select a node
from said second and third nodes,” and that Smith and Syvanne are silent
with respect to this feature (App. Br. 17-19). We disagree with Appellants.
The Examiner relies on Smith for disclosing this feature (Ans. 7).
Specifically, Smith discloses
Appeal 2011-013478
Application 11/255,762

5
The distribution of data to the various analysis processors as
well as the specific analysis performed at those processors can
be adjusted on-the-fly and can be based, by way of example, on
current network conditions . . . . In an embodiment where
multiple processors are analyzing the same network data, it can
be desirable for a communication path to exist between the
processors so that they may coordinate an efficient means of
dividing the workload of analysis processing (e.g., load
balancing.).

(Smith, ¶ [0096]). Appellants do not specifically explain why this passage
fails to disclose the claim 3 feature for which it is relied upon. Moreover,
Appellants’ argument that Caronni teaches away from Smith’s load
balancing is not persuasive. The fact that Caronni discloses “data is
forwarded to the next node” (App. Br. 18) does not teach away from
selecting one of multiple nodes to which to forward the data. Rather,
Caronni discloses multiple interconnected nodes to which data may be
forwarded based on available resources (see Caronni, ¶ [0039]).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3, and claims 4-8, 10, 17, 21, 22, 26, and 27 not specifically argued
separately.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-30 is affirmed.
Appeal 2011-013478
Application 11/255,762

6
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

llw