MERU NETWORKS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 17, 2021

2019006352 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2021)

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.
15/088,066 03/31/2016 Anil Kaushik FOR-090 2748
88268 7590 03/17/2021
Law Office of Dorian Cartwright
P.O. Box 6629
San Jose, CA 95150
EXAMINER
LAM, YEE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
uspto@cartwrightesq.com
vibrantnet@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066
1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte ANIL KAUSHIK
____________
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066
Technology Center 2400
____________
Before LARRY J. HUME, CATHERINE SHIANG, and BETH Z.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The disclosed and claimed invention relates to “increasing
delivery probability of multicast video transmissions.” Spec. ¶ 1.
A network device detects a multicast video stream
being from an upstream resource being sent to
downstream multicast members. If the number of
multicast members are below a threshold (e.g., 5
stations), multicast network packets can be converted to
unicast network packets. On the other hand, if the number
of multicast members are above the threshold, the
multicast members are divided into groupings based on
capabilities of the multicast members, such as data rate
capability. Data rates of transmissions are set according
to the group data rate capabilities. As a result, the higher
data rate members are able to operate at a higher speed
rather than at the lowest common denominator. Further,
because there are several multicast streams being sent,
packets missed from the higher data rate stream can be
picked up on the lower data rate stream.
Spec., Abstr. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer-implemented method in a network
device of a data communication network, for increasing
delivery probability of multicast video transmissions, the
method comprising the steps of:
detecting, by a processor of the network device, a
video stream within a multicast transmission of network
packets to multicast members;
responsive to a number of the multicast members
being below a threshold, converting, by the processor, the
mult icast transmission to a plural i ty of unicast
transmissions, wherein the unicast transmission provides
an acknowledgment for received network packets from
the multicast members;
responsive to the number of multicast members
meeting or exceeding the threshold:
determining, by the processor, data rate capabilities
for each of the multicast members,
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066
3
grouping the multicast members into two or more
groups based on corresponding data rate capabilities,
and
generating a multicast stream for each of the groups
at distinct data rates from the multicast transmission; and
sending, by a network interface of the network
device, the multicast transmission downstream to the
multicast members groups at the distinct data rates.
References and Rejections
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis
13 112(b) Indefiniteness
1–5, 7–11,
13
103 Kish (US 2006/0098613 A1,
published May 11, 2006),
Gonzales (US 2013/0246631 A1,
published Sept. 19, 2013)
6, 12 103 Kish, Gonzales, Ginzburg (US
2008/0002621 A1, published Jan.
3, 2008)
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The Examiner concludes claim 13 is indefinite because
Claim 13 recites limitation using “means for, step for, or
generic placeholder” to perform tasks as follow:
- “video multicast detection module . . . to detect . . .,”
- “unicast conversion module . . . to . . . convert. . .,” and
- “data rate grouping module . . . to . . . determine . . . .
These limitations . . . are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C.
112(f). . . . However, the written description fails to
disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for
each of these claimed functions. Applicant has provided
no means for ascertaining the requisite structure,
material, or acts for performing these tasks anywhere in
the specification. After careful review of the written
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066
4
description, the examiner has concluded that the written
description is silent as to any corresponding structure,
material, or acts for these generic placeholders.
Final Act. 4.
Because Appellant does not argue against the Examiner’s
rejection, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness
rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Obviousness
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
We have reviewed and considered Appellant’s arguments,
which we find to be unpersuasive. To the extent consistent with our
analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in
(i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer.
I
Appellant contends Kish does not teach “detecting . . . a video
stream within a multicast transmission of network packets to multicast
members,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9–10. In particular,
Appellant duplicates Kish’s paragraphs 26–28 and asserts “the cited
portion of Kish does not support any type of detection of a video
stream because the only embodiment of the citation is a video
stream, so there is nothing to detect.” See Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. The Examiner finds
“Kish in at least para 26-28 discloses that the access point receives
video unicast, multicast, and broadcast packets, and the destination
address of these packets are examined in order to determine whether
they are video unicast, multicast, or broadcast packets.” Advisory
Act. 2 (emphases added). Appellant does not respond to that finding.
In the Answer, the Examiner further explains why Kish teaches the
disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 9–12. Specifically, the Examiner
explains:
In light of these passages [27 and 30 from Kish], a person
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066
5
skilled in the art would have known that when the access
point 120 receive these IP multicast packets containing
video stream, the packets’ headers and payloads would
have been read and inspected by the access point 120 for
delivery and control information, for example, information
such as addresses (e.g. source and destination) and
protocol (e.g. the protocol used in the data portion of the
IP datagram). Based on the inspection of the headers and
payloads, a person skilled in the art would also have
known that the access point 120 would have detected
video stream within the multicast transmission.
Ans. 11.
Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s further findings,
as Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief. Because Appellant does not
persuasively respond to the Examiner’s findings, Appellant fails to
show Examiner error. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this
Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
II
Appellant contends Kish does not teach “responsive to a
number of the multicast members being below a threshold, converting
. . . ,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11. In particular,
Appellant duplicates Kish’s paragraphs 42 and asserts “Clearly, para.
42 of Kish fails to disclose converting based on a number of multicast
members.” Appeal Br. 11.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner further
explains why Kish teaches the disputed claim limitation. See Ans.
13–15. Specifically, the Examiner analyzes Kish’s paragraphs 39
and 42 and finds such paragraphs teach “responsive to a number of
the multicast members being below a threshold, converting . . . ,” as
recited in claim 1. See Ans. 13–15.
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066
6
Appellant does not critique Kish’s paragraph 39, and does not
respond to the Examiner’s further findings. Therefore, Appellant fails
to show Examiner error. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and
independent claims 7 and 13 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding
dependent claims 2–6 and 8–12, as Appellant does not advance
separate substantive arguments about those claims. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision (i) rejecting claim 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b); and (ii) rejecting claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Ba
sis
Affirmed Reversed
13 112(b) Indefiniteness 13
1–5,
7–11, 13
103 Kish, Gonzales 1–5, 7–11,
13
6, 12 103 Kish, Gonzales,
Ginzburg
6, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–13
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).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANIL KAUSHIK
____________

Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before LARRY J. HUME, CATHERINE SHIANG, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–13, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies Fortinet, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The disclosed and claimed invention relates to “increasing delivery
probability of multicast video transmissions.” Spec. ¶ 1.
A network device detects a multicast video stream being
from an upstream resource being sent to downstream multicast
members. If the number of multicast members are below a
threshold (e.g., 5 stations), multicast network packets can be
converted to unicast network packets. On the other hand, if the
number of multicast members are above the threshold, the
multicast members are divided into groupings based on
capabilities of the multicast members, such as data rate
capability. Data rates of transmissions are set according to the
group data rate capabilities. As a result, the higher data rate
members are able to operate at a higher speed rather than at the
lowest common denominator. Further, because there are several
multicast streams being sent, packets missed from the higher data
rate stream can be picked up on the lower data rate stream.
Spec., Abstr. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer-implemented method in a network device
of a data communication network, for increasing delivery
probability of multicast video transmissions, the method
comprising the steps of:
detecting, by a processor of the network device, a video
stream within a multicast transmission of network packets to
multicast members;
responsive to a number of the multicast members being
below a threshold, converting, by the processor, the multicast
transmission to a plurality of unicast transmissions, wherein the
unicast transmission provides an acknowledgment for received
network packets from the multicast members;
responsive to the number of multicast members meeting
or exceeding the threshold:
determining, by the processor, data rate capabilities for
each of the multicast members,
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066

3
grouping the multicast members into two or more groups
based on corresponding data rate capabilities, and
generating a multicast stream for each of the groups at
distinct data rates from the multicast transmission; and
sending, by a network interface of the network device, the
multicast transmission downstream to the multicast members
groups at the distinct data rates.

References and Rejections2
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis
13 112(b) Indefiniteness
1–5, 7–11, 13 103 Kish (US 2006/0098613 A1,
published May 11, 2006), Gonzales
(US 2013/0246631 A1, published
Sept. 19, 2013)
6, 12 103 Kish, Gonzales, Ginzburg (US
2008/0002621 A1, published Jan. 3,
2008)
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)

The Examiner concludes claim 13 is indefinite because
Claim 13 recites limitation using “means for, step for, or generic
placeholder” to perform tasks as follow:
- “video multicast detection module . . . to detect . . .,”
- “unicast conversion module . . . to . . . convert. . .,” and
- “data rate grouping module . . . to . . . determine . . . .

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated Mar.
16, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Jan. 4, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”);
and (3) Examiner’s Answer dated Mar. 5, 2019 (“Ans.”). We note Appellant
did not file a Reply Brief in response to the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions in the Answer.
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066

4
These limitations . . . are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
. . . However, the written description fails to disclose the
corresponding structure, material, or acts for each of these
claimed functions. Applicant has provided no means for
ascertaining the requisite structure, material, or acts for
performing these tasks anywhere in the specification. After
careful review of the written description, the examiner has
concluded that the written description is silent as to any
corresponding structure, material, or acts for these generic
placeholders.
Final Act. 4.
Because Appellant does not argue against the Examiner’s rejection,
we summarily sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Obviousness
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
We have reviewed and considered Appellant’s arguments, which we
find to be unpersuasive. To the extent consistent with our analysis below,
we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from
which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer.
I
Appellant contends Kish does not teach “detecting . . . a video stream
within a multicast transmission of network packets to multicast members,”
as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9–10. In particular, Appellant
duplicates Kish’s paragraphs 26–28 and asserts “the cited portion of Kish
does not support any type of detection of a video stream because the only
embodiment of the citation is a video stream, so there is nothing to detect.”
See Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066

5
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. The Examiner finds “Kish in
at least para 26-28 discloses that the access point receives video unicast,
multicast, and broadcast packets, and the destination address of these
packets are examined in order to determine whether they are video unicast,
multicast, or broadcast packets.” Advisory Act. 2 (emphases added).
Appellant does not respond to that finding. In the Answer, the Examiner
further explains why Kish teaches the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 9–
12. Specifically, the Examiner explains:
In light of these passages [27 and 30 from Kish], a person skilled
in the art would have known that when the access point 120
receive these IP multicast packets containing video stream, the
packets’ headers and payloads would have been read and
inspected by the access point 120 for delivery and control
information, for example, information such as addresses (e.g.
source and destination) and protocol (e.g. the protocol used in the
data portion of the IP datagram). Based on the inspection of the
headers and payloads, a person skilled in the art would also have
known that the access point 120 would have detected video
stream within the multicast transmission.
Ans. 11.
Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s further findings, as
Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief. Because Appellant does not
persuasively respond to the Examiner’s findings, Appellant fails to show
Examiner error. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.”).
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066

6
II
Appellant contends Kish does not teach “responsive to a number of
the multicast members being below a threshold, converting . . . ,” as recited
in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11. In particular, Appellant duplicates Kish’s
paragraphs 42 and asserts “Clearly, para. 42 of Kish fails to disclose
converting based on a number of multicast members.” Appeal Br. 11.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner further explains
why Kish teaches the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 13–15.
Specifically, the Examiner analyzes Kish’s paragraphs 39 and 42 and finds
such paragraphs teach “responsive to a number of the multicast members
being below a threshold, converting . . . ,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans.
13–15.
Appellant does not critique Kish’s paragraph 39, and does not respond
to the Examiner’s further findings. Therefore, Appellant fails to show
Examiner error. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent
claims 7 and 13 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2–6 and 8–12, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive
arguments about those claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision (i) rejecting claim 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b); and (ii) rejecting claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-006352
Application 15/088,066

7
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
13 112(b) Indefiniteness 13
1–5, 7–11,
13
103 Kish, Gonzales 1–5, 7–11,
13

6, 12 103 Kish, Gonzales,
Ginzburg
6, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–13

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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED