Eyran Lida et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 4, 2020

2018007092 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2020)

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.
14/482,245 09/10/2014 Eyran Lida Va_Edge_Shaping2 7713
16759 7590 06/04/2020
Active Knowledge Ltd.
P.O. Box 294
Kiryat Tivon, 36011
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
VANG, MENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2020 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):
ari@activekn.com
gil@activekn.com
tal@activekn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EYRAN LIDA and AVIV SALAMON
Appeal 2018-007092
Application 14/482,245
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–20 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant,1
and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Final Act.
1–2; Appeal Br. 3.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Valens
Semiconductor Ltd. See Appeal Br. 3.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Sept. 10, 2014
(claiming benefit of US 61/988,247, filed May 4, 2014); Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”), filed Dec. 5, 2017; Supplemental Appeal Brief (“Supp.
Appeal Br.”), filed Jan. 9, 2018; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Aug.
24, 2018. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final
Act.”), mailed Dec. 1, 2017; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 28, 2018.
Appeal 2018-007092
Application 14/482,245

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to “packet switching networks” “utilized for
delivery of streaming media content.” Spec. 1:14–15. More specifically,
Appellant’s invention relates to networks and methods for admitting
streaming sessions based on capabilities, especially the latency variation, of
a destination node. See Spec. 2:2–29; Abstract. Claims 1 and 12 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A network configured to admit streaming sessions
based on capabilities of their destinations, comprising:
a processor configured to receive a request to establish a
new streaming session over a new path, in presence of an existing
streaming session; wherein the existing streaming session is
established over an existing path, and the new path and the
existing path pass through an output port of a switch;
the processor is further configured to: receive capabilities
of a destination of the new streaming session, and allocate a limit
for a first allowable end-to-end latency variation of the new
streaming session based on the capabilities;
the processor is further configured to estimate, before the
new streaming session is established, an estimated end-to-end
latency variation of the new streaming session, as if the new
streaming session is established over the new path; and
the processor is further configured to: determine, by
comparing the estimated end-to-end latency variation with the
limit, a determination that the estimated end-to-end latency
variation exceeds the limit, and reject the request based on the
determination.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2018-007092
Application 14/482,245

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Georgiadis et al. (“Georgiadis”) US 5,933,414 Aug. 3, 1999
Lida et al. (“Lida”) US 2011/0317587 A1 Dec. 29, 2011
Lee et al. (“Lee”) US 2012/0324120 A1 Dec. 20, 2012
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 5–11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as being as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the
invention. See Final Act. 6–7.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lida and Georgiadis. See Final
Act. 7–21.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lida, Georgiadis, and Lee. See Final Act. 20–21.
ANALYSIS
The indefiniteness Rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 5–11
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 5–11 as being indefinite
because independent claim 1 recites only “processor configured to”
limitations. See Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 2. Appellant states “Appellant is ready
to add the suggested limitations of ‘a switch’ and ‘communication links[,’]

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112. Because the present
application has an effective filing date (May 4, 2014) after the AIA’s
effective date, this decision refers 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112(b).
Appeal 2018-007092
Application 14/482,245

4
or any other similar limitations in order to overcome the 35 USC §112
rejection.” Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant does not dispute the substance of the Examiner’s rejection
and, therefore, do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s indefiniteness
rejection. Accordingly, we sustain pro forma the Examiner’s indefiniteness
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5–11.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4–12, and 14–20
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claim 12, and dependent claims 2, 4–11, and 14–20) as being obvious over
Lida and Georgiadis. See Final Act. 7–10; Ans. 3–11. Appellant contends
that Lida and Georgiadis do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 7–13; Reply Br. 2–5. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter
alia, that Lida teaches “the RPE comput[ing] the routing calculations
AFTER [creation of] the session” (Appeal Br. 8; see Appeal Br. 7–11) and
“Georgiadis conveys the jitter control information in the header of
transmitted packets,” but “calculation[s] [performed] before a new streaming
session is established cannot [be] convey[ed] . . . in the header of transmitted
packets” (Appeal Br. 12). See Appeal Br. 7–13; Reply Br. 2–5.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Lida (see
Lida ¶¶ 77, 80, 104, 166, 265; Figs. 18–20) and Georgiadis (see Georgiadis
col 3, l. 66–col. 4, l. 9; Figs. 3–4) do not teach or suggest estimating end-to-
end latency variation (jitter) of the new streaming session prior to the
establishment of the new streaming session, comparing the estimated end-to-
end latency variation with a latency variation limit, and rejecting a request to
establish a new streaming session over a new path when the estimated end-
to-end latency variation exceeds the limit as required by Appellant’s claim 1.
Appeal 2018-007092
Application 14/482,245

5
See Appeal Br. 7–13; Reply Br. 2–5. Even if we were to concur with the
Examiner that the Examiner-cited portions of Lida describe estimating end-
to-end latency variation before establishing a new streaming session, which
we do not, the cited portions of Georgiadis teach including jitter information
in packet headers (see Appeal Br. 12 (citing Georgiadis, col. 1, ll. 7–19))—
i.e., packets sent over an existing session. Further, as pointed out by
Appellant (see Appeal Br. 12 (citing Geogiadis col. 3, ll. 1–9)), Geogiadis
describes measuring delay and including delay information in the packet
header, which “indicate(s) . . . the amount of delay that this packet has
incurred” (Geogiadis col. 3, ll. 2–4) and which is used to limit or control
jitter. See Geogiadis col. 2, l. 56–col. 3, l. 15. Here again, the call setup
path has been determined and, thus, the call session has already been
initiated. Georgiadis’ express disclosure contradicts the Examiner’s
interpretation of Georgiadis (see Ans. 4–7) and makes the proposed
combination incompatible. See Reply Br. 2–5. Indeed, the Examiner states
that a new streaming session, according to Georgiadis, “will be accepted or
rejected based on the incurred delay information of the existing streaming
session.” Ans. 6–7. The Examiner does not explain sufficiently how the
cited portions of Lida in combination with Georgiadis at least suggest the
disputed features of estimating end-to-end latency variation of a (new)
streaming session and comparing the estimated end-to-end latency variation
with a latency variation limit prior to the establishment of the streaming
session as required by claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Lida and Georgiadis
renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claim 12 includes
Appeal 2018-007092
Application 14/482,245

6
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2, 4–11, and 14–20 depend from
and stand with their respective base claims.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3 and 13
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Lida, Georgiadis, and Lee. See Final Act. 20–
21.
The Examiner does not suggest, and we do not find, that the additional
cited reference, Lee, cures the deficiencies of Lida and Georgiadis (supra).
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 3 and 13 for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 (supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
2, and 5–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Appellant has shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5–11, but do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, and 12–20.
Appeal 2018-007092
Application 14/482,245

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–11 112(b) 1, 2, 5–11
1, 2, 4–12,
14–20
103 Lida, Georgiadis 1, 2, 4–12,
14–20
3, 13 103 Lida, Georgiadis, Lee 3, 13
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–11 3, 4, 12–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRM IN PART