Ex Parte Zilbershtein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2013

11482608 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/482,608 07/07/2006 Itai Ephraim Zilbershtein AVYA.49US01 7123
109149 7590 04/26/2013
Cochran Freund & Young/ AVAYA, Inc.
2026 Caribou Drive
Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80525
EXAMINER
GOLDBERG, ANDREW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte ITAI EPHRAIM ZILBERSHTEIN, SHLOMO BITON, and
DAN GLUSKIN
_____________

Appeal 2011-000722
Application 11/482,608
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, BRYAN F. MOORE, HUNG H. BUI
Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000722
Application 11/482,608

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 43, 44, 46-57, and 59-67. Br. 6.
1
We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system for parking assistance.
Claim 43 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below:
43. A method comprising:
transmitting a request from a first network element to a second network
element;
receiving, at the first network element from the second network element, a
response to the request, wherein the response is in a first protocol;
translating the response in the first protocol to a second protocol, wherein
translating the response comprises partitioning at least one packet of the
response into a plurality of data blocks;
transmitting from the first network element, using the second protocol, the
plurality of data blocks to:
i. a first telecommunications terminal, wherein the plurality of data
blocks are transmitted to the first telecommunications terminal at a rate of
R1;

1
The Examiner withdrew the rejection off claims 44-46 and 57-59 under 35
U.S.C. 112 2
nd
paragraph. Ans. 3. Thus, claims 45 and 58, which are not
otherwise rejected, are indicated as allowable if rewritten to include all of
the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Appeal 2011-000722
Application 11/482,608

3
ii. a second telecommunications terminal, wherein the plurality of data
blocks are transmitted to the second telecommunications terminal at a rate of
R2;
and
allocating bandwidth by reducing the rate R1 so that each data block in the
plurality of data blocks are transmitted to the first telecommunications
terminal at the rate R2.

REFERENCES
Hagendorf US 2006/0067251 A1 Mar. 30, 2006
J. Postel, RFC 768 – User Datagram Protocol, August 28, 1980.
K. Sollins RFC 1350 – The TFTP Protocol, July 1992, MIT.
R. Fielding et al., RFC 616 – User Hyptertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1,
June 1999.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 43, 44, 46-57, 59-67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Cisco, Hagendorf, and RFC. Ans. 4-
13.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Cisco teaches “translating the
response in the first protocol to a second protocol, wherein
translating the response comprises partitioning at least one packet
of the response into a plurality of data blocks,” and “transmitting
from the first network element, using the second protocol, the
plurality of data blocks” recited in claim 43; and
Appeal 2011-000722
Application 11/482,608

4
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Cisco teaches “the plurality of
data blocks are: i. sequentially transmitted from the first network
element to the first telecommunications terminal, and ii.
sequentially transmitted from the first network element to the
second telecommunications terminal based, at least in part, on a
block number associated with each data block of the plurality of
data blocks,” recited in claim 44?

ANALYSIS
Claim 43
Claim 43 recites “translating the response in the first protocol to a
second protocol, wherein translating the response comprises partitioning at
least one packet of the response into a plurality of data blocks.” Appellants
argue that Cisco does not teach the partitioning portion of that limitation. Br.
17. Specifically, Appellants argues that “Cisco does not provide any
disclosure or suggestion that the Content Engine partitions the ‘HTTP’
received from the ‘origin server’ into a plurality of ‘TFTP’ data blocks.” Br.
18. This argument is not persuasive of Examiner error.
The Examiner explains that:
TCP (associated with HTTP) works on streams and UDP
(associated with TFTP) works on blocks. In the case when the
origin server transmits HTTP data back to the Content Engine,
the Content Engine must convert the HTTP to TFTP because
the networking devices of Cisco only understand TFTP (chapter
2, page 9, ‘... networking devices that use the native TFTP
protocol’). Therefor, [sic] one of ordinary skill in the art would
conclude that the TCP stream must be split up into UDP blocks
Appeal 2011-000722
Application 11/482,608

5
and sent [sic] to the requesting network device. For example,
assume a TCP stream coming from the origin server is 1024
bytes and the defined UDP block size for the system is 512
bytes per block. The Content Engine would then have to split
the stream into two blocks of 512 bytes per block
(segmentation).
Ans. 19. We note that RFC teaches that “TFTP is designed to implemented
on top of the Datagram protocol (UDP)). UDP uses what are known as
blocks to transfer data.” RFC, section 3. Further, RFC teaches that “[i]f the
server grants the request, the connection is opened and the file is sent in
fixed length blocks of 512 bytes” Ans. 15 at section 2. Therefore, the
Examiner is correct that in order to transmit the HTTP to the phone, the
HTTP packet must be partitioned into UDP blocks and then converted to
TFTP. See Ans. 15, 19. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
cited references suggest “translating the response in the first protocol to a
second protocol, wherein translating the response comprises partitioning at
least one packet of the response into a plurality of data blocks,” as recited in
claim 43.
Claim 43 further recites “transmitting from the first network element,
using the second protocol, the plurality of data blocks.” Appellants argue
that Cisco does not disclose this limitation. Br. 18-19. Specifically,
Appellants argue “the ‘Content Engine’ retrieves content files in ‘HTTP’
from the Internet and forwards it (i.e., the content file in ‘HTTP’) to the
‘networking devices.’ But Cisco does not teach or suggest that the ‘Content
Engine’ transmits a plurality of data blocks in ‘TFTP’ (the second protocol)
to the ‘networking devices,’ as alleged by the Office.” Id. at 19. This
argument is not persuasive of Examiner error.
Appeal 2011-000722
Application 11/482,608

6
As noted above, the networking devices of Cisco use native TFTP.
Cisco, chapter 9, page 2. Thus, Cisco meets the above limitation because the
Content Engine (i.e., first network element) transmits data blocks to multiple
network devices in TFTP (i.e., a second protocol). Cisco, chapter 2, page 18,
Fig. 2-8; Ans. 19-20.
Appellants do not substantively argue the rejection of claims 46-57,
and 59-67. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 43, 46-57, and 59-67.
Claim 44
Claim 44 recites “the plurality of data blocks are: i. sequentially
transmitted from the first network element to the first telecommunications
terminal, and ii. sequentially transmitted from the first network element to
the second telecommunications terminal based, at least in part, on a block
number associated with each data block of the plurality of data blocks.”
Appellants argue that “nowhere does RFC, either alone or in combination
with Cisco, provide any teaching or suggestion that the TFTP packets are
sequentially transmitted based on the number of each TFTP packet.” Br. 21.
This argument is persuasive of Examiner error.
The Examiner finds that the term sequentially simply means that the
blocks are transmitted in some type of order. Ans. 22. The Examiner also
finds that “the blocks must be transferred back to the network devices via
some sequence (i.e. position on queue, block number, FIFO, LIFO, etc.) and
therefor [sic] meets the claim limitation.” Id. However, the Examiner does
not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would base the transmission
of blocks, at least in part, on block number as opposed to the queue position
Appeal 2011-000722
Application 11/482,608

7
or FIFO or LIFO. Additionally, the Examiner does not point to any
disclosure in the cited references that suggests the transmission is based, at
least in part, on block number. The Examiner states “[i]f the block numbers
had no importance to the transferring of packets (i.e. to check for duplicates,
ordering, etc.), than why would there be a block number?” Ans. 23. This
rhetorical question suggests that block number must have some unspecified
importance to transmitting blocks but does not provide any reason why
block number would be involved in transmitting blocks. Therefore, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claim 44.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 46-57, and 59-67 is
affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 44 is reversed.
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-IN-PART

dw