Eyran Lida et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2020

2018007208 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 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.
14/482,197 09/10/2014 Eyran Lida Va_Edge_Shaping1 4199
16759 7590 07/01/2020
Active Knowledge Ltd.
P.O. Box 294
Kiryat Tivon, 36011
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
VANG, MENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2020 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 2018-007208
Application 14/482,197
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, SHARON FENICK, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–20, which constitute all of the pending claims.
Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Valens Semiconductor Ltd. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-007208
Application 14/482,197
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s Specification describes the present invention as related to
delivery of streaming media content over a network, where new streaming
sessions may have an effect on the latency of existing streaming sessions.
Spec. 1:14–2:28, 4:8–5:13. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A network configured to admit streaming sessions,
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, the new path and
the existing path pass through an output port of a switch, and
the existing streaming session is associated with a limit for its
end-to-end latency variation;
the processor is further configured to estimate, before the
new streaming session is established, an estimated end-to-end
latency variation of the existing 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 first request based on
the determination.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2018-007208
Application 14/482,197
3
STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Georgiadis et al. IS 5,933,414 Aug. 3, 1999
Thomas et al. US 8,843,630 B1 Sept. 23, 2014
Lida et al. US 2011/0317587 A1 Dec. 29, 2011
Claims 1–5 and 7–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that
Appellant regards as the invention. Final Act. 5–6.
Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11, 12, and 14–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Lida and Georgiadis. Final Act. 7–15.
Claims 3, 10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lida, Georgiadis, and Thomas. Final Act. 15–19.
OPINION
§ 112 Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1–5 and 7–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Final Act. 5–6.
The Examiner quotes a Supreme Court case holding that a machine must be
“a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and
combination[s] of devices.” Id. at 6 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S.
(1 Wall.) 531, 570 (1863)). The Examiner additionally finds that “there is
insufficient structure” in the claims. Id. (citing MPEP § 2106.03(I)2).

2 This section of the MPEP relates to the categories of statutory subject
matter, “processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter,”
deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent. MPEP § 2106.03(I).
Appeal 2018-007208
Application 14/482,197
4
Appellant appeals the rejection, noting that it “is ready to add”
suggested limitations to overcome the rejection, and additionally argues,
without more, that the claim is not a “means for” claim which would be
covered by § 112(f).
Appellant appears to understand the Examiner to have determined the
claim to be a “single means claim,” i.e., a claim drafted in “means-plus-
function” format, yet reciting only a single element instead of a combination.
See, e.g., In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 713–714 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The long-
recognized problem with a single means claim is that it covers every
conceivable means for achieving the stated result, while the specification
discloses at most only those means known to the inventor.”). We note that
the network of claim 1 as originally filed comprised two elements: an
“admission controller” and a “latency variation calculator,” each claimed as
configured to perform one or more of the actions that claim 1, as amended,
now recites that the processor is configured to perform. Spec. 40.
If, as Appellant appears to surmise, the rejection were based on a
determination that the claims constitute “single means” claims, such a
rejection should have been made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for lack of
enablement—not for lack of written description. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d
at 713–714; MPEP § 2164.08(a). Regardless, we question whether that
basis of rejection is the Examiner’s actual intent.
More generally, in spite of discussing issues pertaining to the statutory
classes under section 101, the Examiner appears to reject the claims based
on determining that the Appellant has failed to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter. Final Act. 5. As best as we can
understand, the Examiner’s position appears to be that a conflict exists
between claim 1’s preamble and body because the preamble recites a
Appeal 2018-007208
Application 14/482,197
5
plurality of elements (“a system”), whereas the claim’s body recites only a
single element (“a processor”):
[A] system is ‘a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain
devices and combination of devices.’ . . . Here, claims 1–5 and
7–10 are directed to a system, which is a machine, comprising
only [a] “processor configured to” rather than “parts and
combination of devices.” In addition, the “processor” is
configured to perform all the functions of the claim rather than
“devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect
or result.” Thus, there is insufficient structure in claims 1–5 and
7–10.
Final Act. 6.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rationale and legal
support for the rejection is inadequate. We reverse this rejection.
§ 103 Rejection
The Examiner finds that Lida teaches or suggests the network of
claim 1, with the exception of teaching the processor being “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 first request based on the determination,”
which the Examiner finds is taught or suggested by Georgiadis. Final
Act. 7–9.
Lida teaches a switched multimedia network consolidating
networking of time sensitive data and control streams. Lida, Abstract. Lida
describes “T-Adaptors” that communicate with each other over “T-
Networks” when sessions have been created. Id. ¶¶ 30–31. Control and
maintenance of a T-Network may be provided in a Control Point (CP) entity
including a Control Point Management Entity (CPME). Id. ¶ 38. In one
embodiment, a Routing Processor Entity (RPE) may be implemented on top
Appeal 2018-007208
Application 14/482,197
6
of CPME functionality, and the RPE and CPME combine to be aware of and
to “maintain the full topology and status of each link in the network,” as well
as to compute optimal routes for each session upon creation. Id. ¶¶ 143–
144.
The Examiner cites Lida’s teaching that the “RPE takes in[to] account
the latency variation when calculating the routing,” as part of the teaching or
suggestion of an estimation, before the new streaming session is established,
of an estimated end-to-end latency variation of the existing streaming. Lida
¶ 265 (cited at Final Act. 8). The Examiner additionally finds, “the claims
fail to recite that the new streaming session or data pertaining to the new
streaming session is used to estimate the end-to-end latency variation.”
Final Act. 4; see also Answer 7. The Examiner additionally finds that Lida
teaches an estimated end-to-end latency calculation, as if the new streaming
session is established over the new path. Final Act. 4 (citing Lida ¶¶ 104,
106).
Appellant argues that, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, the claims
do require that data pertaining to the (potential) new streaming session is
used in the claimed estimation, and that the Examiner has not shown this
limitation to be taught or suggested in Lida. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3.
The limitation of claim 1 at issue requires that “the processor is
further configured to estimate, before the new streaming session is
established, an estimated end-to-end latency variation of the existing
streaming session, as if the new streaming session is established over the
new path.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). We agree
with Appellant that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim
language requires that this estimation would use or incorporate data
pertaining to the requested new streaming session.
Appeal 2018-007208
Application 14/482,197
7
With respect to the portions of Lida cited by the Examiner for this
proposition, Lida discloses that T-Network services may include “[d]ifferent
levels of packet Scheduling-Priority translating into different latency and
latency variation figures per priority level.” Lida ¶ 104. Lida also discloses,
“[t]he per packet type, Scheduling-Priority property creates differentiation in
the service provided by the network, for different data types, in terms of max
latency and max latency variation over the full network path.” Lida ¶ 106.
While the cited portions of Lida do describe differentiating traffic
based on latency variation, we agree with the Appellant that the cited
portions do not teach or suggest the calculation of an estimate of end-to-end
latency variation for an existing streaming session as if a new streaming
session has been established. Therefore, we reverse this rejection.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–10 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–5, 7–10
1–2, 4–9, 11,
12, 14–20
103 Lida,
Georgiadis
1–2, 4–9, 11,
12, 14–20
3, 10, 13 103 Lida,
Georgiadis,
Thomas
3, 10, 13
Overall
Outcome
1–20