Intel CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 31, 20202019004631 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/978,316 12/22/2015 John Brady P90705 (884.T89US1) 7000 45457 7590 12/31/2020 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/Intel P.O. Box 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, TONY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/31/2020 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): SLW@blackhillsip.com uspto@slwip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOHN BRADY, WAEL GUIBENE, KEITH NOLAN, MICHAEL NOLAN, and MARK KELLY ____________________ Appeal 2019-004631 Application 14/978,3161 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3–9, 11–17, and 19–21, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Intel Corporation. (Appeal Br. 2.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed December 22, 2015, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed July 26, 2018, the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed November 26, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed March 21, 2019, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) Appeal 2019-004631 Application 14/978,316 2 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to a method and device for “adaptive selection of application-layer communication protocols” and “automatic selection of an application-layer communication protocol based upon one or more communication characteristics of [a] sending application and one or more characteristics of the network connection between the sending device and the recipient.” (Spec. ¶ 2; Abstract.) Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for communicating with a remote device, the method comprising: using a computer processor and a network interface: discovering, by communicating with the remote device, a set of at least two supported application-layer communications protocols of the remote device; receiving a message from a source application executing on the computer processor; selecting a first application-layer communications protocol from the set of supported application-layer communications protocols for transmission of the message, the selection based upon a characteristic of a computer network used to communicate with the remote device and a communication characteristic of the source application of the message; constructing the message according to the first application-layer communications protocol; transmitting the message to the remote device over the computer network using the first application-layer communications protocol and the network interface; and subsequent to transmitting the message: filed May 21, 2019. Appeal 2019-004631 Application 14/978,316 3 selecting a second application-layer communications protocol from the set of supported application-layer communications protocols, the second application-layer communications protocol different from the first application- layer communications protocol; constructing a second message from the source application according to the second application-layer communications protocol; and transmitting the second message to the remote device over the computer network using the second application-layer communications protocol. (Appeal Br. 25–30 (Claims App.).) REJECTIONS3 & REFERENCES Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Patel et al. (US 2008/0025230 A1, published Jan. 31, 2008) (“Patel”) and Ho et al. (US 2006/0129650 A1, published June 15, 2006) (“Ho”). (Final Act. 5–12.) Claims 3, 11, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Patel, Ho, and Wang et al. (US 2014/0067902 A1, published Mar. 6, 2014) (“Wang”). (Final Act. 12–14.) Claims 5–8, 13–16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Patel, Ho, and Kozisek et al. (US 2008/0049630 A1, published Feb. 28, 2008) (“Kozisek”). (Final Act. 14–22.) 3 Claims 1, 3–9, 11–17, and 19–21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. (Final Act. 4–5.) However, this rejection was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer and is no longer pending on appeal. (Ans. 3.) Appeal 2019-004631 Application 14/978,316 4 ANALYSIS With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Patel teaches and suggests the claimed “discovering” and “selecting a first application-layer communications protocol.” (Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 3–4.) In particular, the Examiner asserts “Patel discloses at least a version of discovering, by communicating with the remote device, a set of at least two supported application-layer communications protocols of the remote device” because Patel describes a variety of application layer protocols used in node-to-node communication. (Ans. 3–4 (citing Patel ¶¶ 187, 291, 298, 377); Final Act. 5 (citing Patel ¶¶ 214, 317, 372).) The Examiner further asserts “Patel discloses at least a version of the selection based upon a characteristic of a computer network used to communicate with the remote device and a communication characteristic of the source application of the message” because Patel describes message classification rules that specify values, attributes, or character patterns in an application-layer message sent to a remote computer. (Ans. 4 (citing Patel ¶¶ 114, 203, 291, 355, 357); Final Act. 5–6 (citing Patel ¶¶ 220, 225).) We do not agree. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not made a showing that Patel teaches the claimed “discovering” and “selecting a first application-layer communications protocol.” (Appeal Br. 18–21; Reply Br. 3–10.) Rather, the Examiner’s rejection reproduces portions of multiple paragraphs from Patel, inviting the reader to sift through the numerous citations in search of an analysis or teaching of the claimed limitations. (See Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 3–4.) Furthermore, the Examiner’s conclusions that “Patel discloses at least a version” of the claimed “discovering” and Appeal 2019-004631 Application 14/978,316 5 “selecting” (see Ans. 3–4) are based on speculation and conclusory assertions. For example, the Examiner finds, Patel discloses in para 0187, 0291, 298 and 0377 a variety of protocols, including HTTP, SMTP, and FTP with node-to-node Communication with dynamic discovery and the use [of] a remote computer. Therefore Patel’s teachings of different application layer protocols during discovery protocol and communications with a remote computer. See Ans. 3. However, we find that the cited paragraphs of Patel merely describe: a “message [that] may be carried according to any of a variety of protocols, including HTTP, SMTP, and FTP. Thus, within the payload portions of the data packets, protocol headers used by such protocols may precede the message” (¶ 187); AONS (Application-Oriented Network Systems) that “works primarily at the message rather than at the packet level,” “inspect[s] the full message, including the ‘payload’ as well as all headers” and “understands and assists with popular application-level protocols such as HTTP, FTP, SMTP and de facto standard middleware protocols” (¶ 214); “message processing within AONS cloud 1010 can be understood via the following perspectives: Request/Response Message Flow, One-Way Message Flow, Message Flow with Reliable Delivery, and Node-to-Node Communication” (¶ 291); “AONS [that] may conduct route and node discovery via static configuration (next hop) and/or via dynamic discovery and route advertising (‘lazy’ discovery)” (¶ 298); and “computer readable media [that] may be involved in carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions to processor 504 for execution” (¶ 377). (See Patel ¶¶ 187, 214, 291, 298, 0377.) We agree with Appellant that nowhere in these paragraphs is there any description of “discovering, by communicating Appeal 2019-004631 Application 14/978,316 6 with the remote device, a set of at least two supported application-layer communications protocols of the remote device” as claimed. (Appeal Br. 18–20; Reply Br. 4–6.) We find the claimed “discovering” requires a proactive contact, polling, or request directed to the remote device to obtain therefrom a list of supported protocols. (See Spec. ¶¶ 20, 33.) Such is absent from the cited portions of Patel. For additional emphasis, we note that Patel’s “route and node discovery via static configuration (next hop) and/or via dynamic discovery and route advertising (‘lazy’ discovery)” (¶ 298, cited by Examiner apparently because it has the word “discovery”) does not teach or suggest discovering protocols supported by a remote device; instead, paragraph 298 describes discovery of nodes and routes in a network. (See Appeal Br. 18; Reply Br. 5.) Further, we agree that Patel’s disclosure of an “AONS [that] also understands and assists with popular application-level protocols such as HTTP, FTP, SMTP and de facto standard middleware protocols” (¶ 214) does not provide details regarding a protocol discovery function or polling of a remote device for supported protocols. (Appeal Br. 20.) With respect to the claimed “selecting a first application-layer communications protocol,” we note that requires a selection, from the discovered set of protocols, of one application-layer communications protocol based upon two factors (1) a characteristic of a computer network used to communicate with the remote device; and (2) a communication characteristic of the source application of the message. (Appeal Br. 25 (claim 1).) We find that a selection of one protocol from a set of protocols, based on the two factors, is not taught or suggested by the Examiner’s collected paragraphs from Patel. (Appeal Br. 20–21; Reply Br. 3, 6–10.) Appeal 2019-004631 Application 14/978,316 7 Rather, the Examiner’s compiled paragraphs from Patel merely disclose determining a protocol by which a message was already transmitted (¶ 203); including information (a source IP address, a destination IP address, a TCP source port, and a TCP destination port) in a message header (¶ 203); mapping information that maps an application layer protocol (FTP) to a first combination of IP addresses or TCP ports, and maps another application layer protocol (HTTP) to a second combination of IP addresses or TCP ports (¶ 203); computer networks, such as a local area network and a wide area network (¶ 114); a message flow with reliable delivery (¶ 291); placing a message in a prioritized outbox queue (¶ 355); and editing properties associated with a message type, the properties including a name, a Quality of Service (QoS) value, and a rule such as a parameter rule, header rule, or content rule (¶¶ 357–358 and Fig. 28). (See Patel ¶¶ 114, 203, 291, 355, 357–358, Fig. 28.) Although a QoS value may pertain to a communication characteristic of a source application of a message (e.g., by indicating a characteristic of a delay-sensitive or high priority communicator, see Patel ¶¶ 6–9), we agree with Appellant that Patel’s application of QoS values to messages of particular message types (see ¶¶ 352–358) does not teach or suggest selection of an application-layer communications protocol from a retrieved protocol set, based on both factors recited in claim 1 (i.e., a characteristic of a computer network used to communicate with the remote device, together with a communication characteristic of the message’s source). (Reply Br. 3, 8–10; Appeal Br. 21.) The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of Ho, Wang, and Kozisek make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Patel. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s Appeal 2019-004631 Application 14/978,316 8 obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 3–8 dependent therefrom. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 9 and 17 (reciting similar protocol discovery and selection limitations, and argued for substantially the same reasons as claim 1), and claims 11–16 and 19–21 dependent therefrom. (Appeal Br. 23; Reply Br. 12–13.) Because the above-discussed issues are dispositive as to the obviousness rejections of all claims on appeal, we do not reach additional issues raised by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 21–22, Reply Br. 11–12) as to the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–9, 11–17, and 19–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 9, 12, 17, 20 103 Patel, Ho 1, 4, 9, 12, 17, 20 3, 11, 19 103 Patel, Ho, Wang 3, 11, 19 5–8, 13–16, 21 103 Patel, Ho, Kozisek 5–8, 13–16, 21 Overall Outcome 1, 3–9, 11–17, 19–21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation