LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 28, 2020

14920465 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 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.
14/920,465 10/22/2015 Robert Smith 0547-US-U1 8359
83579 7590 08/28/2020
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
EXAMINER
SONG, REBECCA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2020 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):
patent.docketing@centurylink.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT SMITH
___________

Appeal 2019-005086
Application 14/920,465
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–21, and 23. Final Act. 3.2 Claims 8,
11, 22, and 24–26 are canceled. Id. Oral arguments were heard on July 30,

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Level 3
Communications, LLC, a subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
January 28, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 19, 2019); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed August 30, 2018) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 19, 2019); and the Specification
(“Spec.,” filed October 22, 2015). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s
findings and determinations and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we
refer to these documents.
Appeal 2019-005086
Application 14/920,465

2

2020. A transcript (“Tr.”) of the hearing has been added to the record. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed methods
can allow for more automated and timely responses to provide
needed routing changes, including changes in response to DDOS
and other network attacks. Embodiments can provide a central
point to control routing and prevent unqualified people from
having access to network control, as well as logging all routing
changes made. Embodiments are also provided for capturing and
logging routing updates made in a network.
Spec. ¶ 5. As noted above, claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–21, and 23 are pending.
Claim 1 is independent and recites, “[a] method of managing routes of data
traffic within a network.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). Claims 2–7, 9, 10,
12–21, and 23 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Id. at 12–14.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
representative.
1. A method of managing routes of data traffic within
a network, the method comprising performing, by a computer
system:
providing a user interface for a user to input a destination
address and a routing action, wherein the user interface provides
a plurality of routing actions from which to select, wherein the
plurality of routing actions includes a discarding routing action
to be performed at the plurality of border routers;
receiving a first destination address and a first routing
action via the user interface;
receiving, via the user interface, a future time for which
the first routing action is to be used; and
upon reaching the future time:
Appeal 2019-005086
Application 14/920,465

3

updating a configuration file to specify the first routing
action to be performed for the destination address;
converting the configuration file into router management
commands; and
sending the router management commands to a plurality
of border routers of the network.
Id. at 12 (emphases added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Reference Publ’d Filed
Ferguson US 2011/0264822 A1 Oct. 27, 2011 June 17, 2011
Scholl US 2013/0182710 A1 July 18, 2013 Mar. 5, 2013
Hui US 2014/0372577 A1 Dec. 18, 2014 June 18, 2013
Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Scholl, Ferguson, and Hui. Final
Act. 4–13.
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claim 1; so do we. See Final Act. 2–4; Appeal Br. 10–11;
Reply Br. 4. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings in the Final Office Action and the Answer as our own and add any
additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address this rejection below.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-005086
Application 14/920,465

4

ANALYSIS
Obviousness of Claim 1 Over Scholl, Ferguson, and Hui
As noted above, claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–21, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Scholl,
Ferguson, and Hui. Final Act. 4–13. With regard to the disputed
limitations, the Examiner finds that Scholl teaches or suggests the step of
“converting the configuration file into router management commands”
(id. at 5) and that Hui, in view of the teachings of Scholl, teaches or suggests
the step of “receiving, via the user interface, a future time for which the
first routing action is to be used” and taking further steps “upon reaching
the future time” (id. at 6).
With regard to the disputed “converting” step, the Examiner finds
“Scholl et al. discloses that based on the policies, the route reflector selects a
modified next hop address where the destination address 2.2.2.2. rather than
the destination address 3.3.3.3. is selected as the next hop for the shared
address 1.1.1.1 at the [provider edge (PE)] router (par [0023])).” Id. at 5.
Specifically, Scholl discloses:
If the selected PE routers 120-122 are to have their routing
manipulated (e.g., are to route packets directed to the shared
address 1.1.1.1 to the destination 110 rather than the default
destination 111) (block 215), the example route reflector 140
selects a modified next-hop address based on the policy(-ies) 141
(block 220). In the illustrated example of FIG. 1, the route
reflector 140 selects the destination address 2.2.2.2 rather than
the destination address 3.3.3.3 as the next-hop for the shared
address 1.1.1.1 at the PE router 120. The route reflector 140
sends a [border gateway protocol (BGP)] route advertisement
150 to the ingress PE router 120 containing the modified next-
hop address of 2.2.2.2 for the shared address 1.1.1.1 (block
225), and sends another BGP route advertisement 151 to the
Appeal 2019-005086
Application 14/920,465

5

ingress PE router 120 containing routing information for the
next-hop address 2.2.2.2 including the label 1234 assigned to the
interface 128 associated with the destination 110 (block 230).
Scholl ¶ 23 (emphasis added); see id. ¶¶ 15 (“To manage, modify and/or
query the example route tables 124, each of the example PE routers 120-122
of FIG. 1 includes a database module, one of which is designated at
reference 125. Based on, for example, a destination address, a next-hop
address and/or a label, the example database modules 125 of FIG. 1 locate
routing information in the route table 124 by performing one or more
queries.”), 26 (“Via the example [graphic user interface (GUI)] 142 of
FIG. 1 a person such as a technician and/or a network operator can set the
policies 141 to manipulate packet routing by selecting which next-hop
information is to be modified and to what address(es).”). Thus, the
Examiner finds that Scholl’s policies teach or suggest the recited
“configuration file” and Scholl discloses those policies are converted into
route advertisements including, for example, destination addresses or next-
hop addresses, which teach or suggest the recited “router management
commands.” Ans. 17–18; see Scholl ¶ 22 (“Based on one or more
policies 141, the example route reflector 140 of FIG. 1 selects one or more
ingress PE routers 120-122 that are to receive route advertisements based on
the received advertisements 145-147 (block 210).”); see also Scholl ¶¶ 11,
14, 21, Abstract (describing the transmission and content of route
advertisements).
With regard to the disputed “receiving” step, the Examiner finds
Hui et al. is directed to dynamically adjusting network
parameters using weather forecasts. More specifically, Hui et al.
teaches when weather forecast adjusts network parameters and
behavior such filtering specific application traffic (par [0036]);
Appeal 2019-005086
Application 14/920,465

6

the weather forecast is received, it indicates time period that
represents a time at which the corresponding weather condition
is predicted to occur (par [0062]); Network profile table maps a
network profile against a weather condition and maps the
weather condition against a time period (par [0061]) and that
time of day field contains entries for time periods (par [0062];
FIG. 5); a weather forecast is received by [network management
system (NMS)/field area router (FAR)], the NMS/FAR
determines the weather condition based on the time and then
adjust[s] the network-layer parameters such as increas[ing] the
capacity dedicated to broadcast traffic and forming additional
[directed acyclic graphs (DAGs)] when inclement weather is
expected to enable broadcast transmission (par [0075])).
Final Act. 6.
Hui’s Figures 4 and 5 are reproduced below.

Figure 4 depicts “an example network profile table, in which network
profiles are mapped against network applications.” Hui ¶ 7.
Appeal 2019-005086
Application 14/920,465

7

Figure 5 depicts “an example network profile table, in which network
profiles are mapped against weather conditions and time of day indicators.”
Id. ¶ 8; see id. ¶¶ 13 (“Network parameters are then selected for adjustment
based on the predicted weather condition. The selected network parameters
may then be adjusted to improve performance of the network in response to
the predicted weather condition.” (emphasis added)); 36 (“The weather
forecasts/traffic profiles may be provided by an NMS or FAR. [Low power
and lossy networks (LLN)] devices may provide their capabilities to the
NMS/FAR to assist in adjusting parameters.”), 61–62 (discussing adjusting
network parameters in response to predicted weather conditions). Thus, the
Examiner finds Scholl teaches adjusting routes via a GUI (Scholl ¶ 26) and
Hui teaches selecting routes, e.g., “network profiles,” based on a predicted
weather condition, i.e., a forecast for weather conditions at future “times of
day” (Hui ¶¶ 61 (“In other words, network parameters to be adjusted may be
selected based on the predicted weather condition and/or the selected
Appeal 2019-005086
Application 14/920,465

8

network profile without actual formation of the network profile table 500 in
memory 240, or otherwise.”), 75 (“As described above, the end-user may
prioritize [Power Outage Notifications (PONs)] and [Power Restoration
Notifications (PRNs)] when inclement weather is expected.” (emphasis
added))). See Tr. 7:25–12:5.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs in finding that Scholl alone
teaches the “converting” step and Scholl in combination with Hui teaches or
suggests the “receiving” step. Appeal Br. 6–10; Reply Br. 2–4. For the
reasons given below, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions.
First, Appellant contends,
there is no indication in Scholl that the advertisement is
synonymous with a command. Even if the command is similar
to the advertisement, Scholl does not teach that the policy of
Scholl is converted into the advertisement of Scholl. Thus,
Scholl does not teach “converting the configuration file into
router management commands,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 10; see Reply Br. 4. However, as noted above, Scholl discloses
that “[b]ased on one or more policies 141, the example route reflector 140
of FIG. 1 selects one or more ingress PE routers 120-122 that are to receive
route advertisements based on the received advertisements 145-147 (block
210).” Scholl ¶ 22 (emphasis added). Moreover, Scholl discloses, “a person
such as a technician and/or a network operator can set the policies 141 to
manipulate packet routing by selecting which next-hop information is to be
modified and to what address(es).” Id. ¶ 26 (emphasis added). Thus, Scholl
teaches or suggests the policies may manipulate the routing of packets by
means of the router advertisements and that the advertisements effectively
command the routing of packets.
Appeal 2019-005086
Application 14/920,465

9

During the hearing, Appellant contended the Specification defines
command as a Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) command. Tr. 17:7–14
(citing Spec. ¶ 33). Further, Appellant asserts a BGP command and a BGP
advertisement are different. Id. at 21:1–2. Consequently, Appellant
contends Scholl’s advertisement does not teach the recited command. See
Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 4. Initially, the Specification’s Paragraph 33 does
not disclose that a BGP command is different from a BGP advertisement.
See Spec. ¶ 33. Moreover, claim 1 does not recite that “commands” are
BGP commands. See Appeal Br. 12 (Claim App.) Instead, claim 5 recites
“wherein the router management commands are Border Gateway Protocol
(BGP) commands.” Id. Thus, claim 1 is not limited to BGP commands. In
addition, although Scholl discloses an example using BGP advertisements
(see Scholl ¶ 14 (discussing Scholl’s Figure 1)), Appellant does not persuade
us that Scholl’s teachings are limited to BGP advertisements or that Scholl’s
advertisements are different from the recited commands of claim 1.
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding that
Scholl teaches or suggests the “converting” limitation.
Second, Appellant contends:
Paragraph [0036] of Hui teaches that some or all of NMS, FAR,
and LLN devices determine weather forecasts and adjust
parameters. However, determining weather forecasts and
adjusting parameters is not the same as receiving a future time.
Indeed, there is no reference to a future time in paragraph [0036]
of Hui. Furthermore, the future time is not being received via a
user interface. Thus paragraph [0036] of Hui does not teach
“receiving, via the user interface, a future time for which the first
routing action is to be used,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 7; see Reply Br. 2–4. We disagree.
Appeal 2019-005086
Application 14/920,465

10

Appellant contends, “determining weather forecasts and adjusting
parameters is not the same as receiving a future time.” Appeal Br. 7.
However, a weather “forecast” is a prediction of the weather conditions at a
future time. See Hui ¶¶ 13, 36, 41–43, 62, Fig. 5. Thus, we are persuaded
that Hui’s weather forecasts teach or suggest “receiving . . . a future time for
which the first routing action is to be used.” Ans. 14–15.
In addition, Appellant contends Hui does not teach or suggest the
future time is received via a user interface. Appeal Br. 7; see Reply Br. 3–4.
Nevertheless, Appellant misunderstands the Examiner’s combination of the
teachings of Scholl and Hui. Claim 1 recites, “providing a user interface for
a user to input a destination address and a routing action” (Appeal Br. 12
(Claims App.) (emphasis added)), and the Examiner finds – and Appellant
does not contest – that Scholl teaches or suggests this limitation (Final Act. 4
(citing Scholl ¶ 26)). Moreover, the Examiner finds that Hui teaches or
suggests controlling network parameters (id. (citing Hui ¶ 72)), and Hui
discloses, “the NMS/FAR, or any other suitable node/device of the network,
may select nodes of the network to control” (Hui ¶ 72 (emphasis added); but
see Tr. 12:6–13:14). Further, Hui explains that an end-user may modify the
network parameters. See Hui ¶¶ 68 (“The NMS/FAR may also receive
additional input from a user/administrator based on whether the
user/administrator was satisfied with the parameter(s) selected for
adjustment.”), 75 (“As described above, the end-user may prioritize PONs
and PRNs when inclement weather is expected.”). Given the combined
teachings of Scholl and Hui, we are persuaded the Examiner has shown that
the references teach or suggest “receiving, via the user interface, a future
time for which the first routing action is to be used.” See Ans. 15–16.
Appeal 2019-005086
Application 14/920,465

11

We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in determining that the
methods recited in claim 1 are obvious over the combined teachings of
Scholl, Ferguson, and Hui. Further, Appellant does not argue dependent
claims 2–7, 9, 10, 12–21, and 23 separately, and, on this record, we
determine that the Examiner has shown that claims 2–7, 9, 10, 12–21, and 23
also are obvious over the combined teachings of Scholl, Ferguson, and Hui.
See Final Act. 7–13; Appeal Br. 10–11. Consequently, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–21, and 23, and we
sustain the rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–21, and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of
Scholl, Ferguson, and Hui.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–21, and 23 are not
patentable.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–21, and
23.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9, 10,
12–21, 23
103 Scholl, Ferguson,
Hui
1–7, 9, 10,
12–21, 23

Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9, 10,
12–21, 23

Appeal 2019-005086
Application 14/920,465

12

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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED