Ex Parte Widera et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2013

10507179 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RALF WIDERA, CORNELIUS HEIDEMANN,
JOACHIM MENDE, and HEINRICH DOERKEN
____________

Appeal 2010-008603
Application 10/507,1791
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 13-15, 18-23, and 29-31.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is Deutsche Telekom AG.
2 Claims 1-12, 16, 17, 24-28, and 32 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2010-008603
Application 10/507,179

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is a method for transmission of measured data
from a measuring computer to a control computer. A measuring computer
combines measured data into characteristic values and transmits them to the
control computer. The characteristic values can comprise mean one-way
delay, maximum and minimum one-way delay, mean IP delay variation,
maximum IP delay variation, packet loss, and/or throughput. The
characteristic values are associated with the time at which the measured data
is combined into characteristic values (Spec. ¶¶ [0025]-[0027]).
Independent claim 13, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
13. A method for transmitting measured information from a
measuring computer to a control computer of a measuring system, the
measuring computer and the control computer being interconnected via a
telecommunications network, the method comprising:
transmitting a plurality of measurement packets to the measuring
computer so as to provide measured data including a plurality of respective
one-way delay measurements;
combining the measured data into characteristic values having a lower
volume than the measured data, the characteristic values including at least
one of a mean one-way delay, a maximum one-way delay, and minimum
one-way delay, a standard deviation of a one-way delay, a mean IP delay
variation, a maximum IP delay variation, a standard deviation of an IP delay
variation, a packet loss, and a packet throughput over a time interval;
associating the characteristic values with a time of the combining; and
transmitting the characteristic values from the measuring computer to
the control computer.

REFERENCE
Mimura US 6,847,613 B2 Jan. 25, 2005

Appeal 2010-008603
Application 10/507,179

3
REJECTION
Claims 13-15, 18-23, and 29-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Mimura.

ISSUE
Appellants argue that Mimura fails to teach or suggest associating
characteristic values with a time of their combining. According to
Appellants, Mimura merely teaches sending a timestamp to the user
indicating the end of each measured packet (App. Br. 7).
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue:
Does Mimura teach associating characteristic values with a time of the
combining?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
Appeal 2010-008603
Application 10/507,179

4
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”).

ANALYSIS
Claims 13 and 29, the pending independent claims, both recite
“associat[ing] the characteristic values with a time of the combining.”
The Examiner finds that
any time during which the plurality of measured packets are
being counted and evaluated for the statistics data described at
col. 6, line 65 – col. 7, line 21 is ‘a time of combining’; thus
either the start or end time stamps, which marks the beginning
or ending of the characteristic evaluation process, respectively,
specifies a point of combining
(Ans. 4). We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding.
We note that the statistics data being computed in Mimura include,
inter alia,
the total number of packets passed across the packet forwarding
processor . . . the number of packets passed per unit time . . . the
maximum, minimum, and average numbers of packets passed
per unit time . . . each count of the bytes for the above
maximum, minimum, and average numbers of the packets
(col. 6, l. 66 – col. 7, l. 10). In order for Mimura’s meter 5 to report correct
statistics (“characteristic values”), it must observe all the incoming IP
packets before computing. Consequently, we disagree with the Examiner
that any time stamp before the end time stamp could meet the claim
language. We further find that the computing such characteristic values must
inevitably take some nonzero amount of time; therefore, it is not possible
that the “time of combining” can be identical to the time stamp of the final
packet. Further, Appellants’ Specification discloses an “aggregation time”
Appeal 2010-008603
Application 10/507,179

5
being entered in row 72a of table 66 of characteristic values (see Fig. 2).
“The aggregation time allows the calculated characteristic values to be
associated with the original measured data” (¶ [0051]). We observe that
Appellants’ aggregation time (Fig. 2) is significantly later than the latest
send time stamp (STS) and receive time stamp (RTS).
The Examiner has not pointed to any teaching in Mimura showing a
discrete “aggregation time” or “time of the combining.” We therefore find
that the Examiner erred in finding that Mimura teaches this limitation, and
that the Examiner has not established the prima facie obviousness of the
claimed invention.
We conclude that the Examiner erred, and we will not sustain the §
103 rejection of claims 13-15, 18-23, and 29-31.

CONCLUSION
Mimura does not teach associating characteristic values with a time of
the combining.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13-15, 18-23, and 29-31 is
reversed.

REVERSED

babc