Vidhyalakshmi Karthikeyan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 20, 2020

13997562 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 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.
13/997,562 06/24/2013 Vidhyalakshmi Karthikeyan RYM-36-2459 6200
23117 7590 04/20/2020
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
MESA, JOEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2020 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIDHYALAKSHMI KARTHIKEYAN and
DETLEF DANIEL NAUCK
Appeal 2018-0085691
Application 13/997,562
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant2 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies Appeal Nos. 2018-008052 (Application No.
13/997,445), 2018-008053 (Application No. 13/997,529), and 2018-008568
(Application No. 13/997,485) as related appeals. See Appeal Brief 4, filed
February 26, 2018 (Appeal Br.).
2 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as British
Telecommunications Public Limited Company. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008569
Application 13/997,562

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “the autonomic operation of
communications networks.” Specification 1, filed June 24, 2013, amended
June 24, 2013 and December 1, 2015 (Spec.). Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter:
1. A communications network comprising a plurality of
network segments, each of the plurality of network segments
comprising a segment management module, one or more routers
and a plurality of communications links, the communications
links connecting each router to one or more other routers; and a
global network management module, the global network
management module being in communication with a network
management database wherein, in use, the global network
management module is configured to:
a) analyze information received from one or more of the
plurality of segment management modules;
b) determine the probability that a traffic event will occur,
based on the information received in (a); and
c) reconfigure the communications network in response to
a decision that the traffic event will occur, the network
reconfiguration occurring before the occurrence of the traffic
event,
wherein the communications network is configured as a
segmented network.
Appeal Br. 20.
Appeal 2018-008569
Application 13/997,562

3
REJECTIONS3
Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)
1, 2, 4, 5, 7–12,
14–22 103(a) Kings,
4 Steinberg5
3, 13 103(a) Kings, Steinberg, Levy6
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and Appellant’s
arguments, and Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning,
findings, and conclusions on pages 3–4 and 9–15 of the Final Office Action
mailed August 24, 2017 (Final Act.), and pages 3–6 of the Examiner’s
Answer mailed June 27, 2018 (Ans.). We address Appellant’s arguments
below.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “wherein the communications network is configured
as a segmented network.” Appeal Br. 20. Appellant argues that Steinberg
does not teach or suggest this limitation. See Appeal Br. 12–18; Reply Brief
2–4, filed August 27, 2018 (Reply Br.). According to Appellant, Steinberg
concerns picking the right parts of a path through a network, not a
segmented network. See Appeal Br. 14–15. Appellant also contends that
Steinberg’s core and access networks do not teach or suggest “a segmented

3 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claim 9 under § 101 and a
provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1, 8, and
19. See Examiner’s Answer 2, mailed June 27, 2018.
4 Kings et al. (WO 2010/112855 A1; October 7, 2010).
5 Steinberg et al. (US 2004/0136324 A1; July 15, 2004).
6 Levy et al. (US 2003/0179703 A1; September 25, 2003).
Appeal 2018-008569
Application 13/997,562

4
network” because the core and access networks are “not different segments
of a single network” but instead are “separate networks.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant argues that “the first and second full paragraphs on page 10” of
the written description “foreclose an overly broad reading” of “segmented
network” that includes Steinberg’s core and access networks. Reply Br. 3–4.
In Appellant’s view, in light of these paragraphs, “one skilled in the art
would recognize” that Steinberg’s core and access networks do not “amount
to a sub-division of a given network into a plurality of segments, etc., as set
forth here.” Reply Br. 4.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. Appellant has not offered a
clear definition of ‘“wherein the communications network is configured as a
segmented network” or presented persuasive evidence that the term
“segmented network” has a particular meaning to those of ordinary skill in
the art. Neither claim 1 nor the written description explicitly defines the
disputed limitation, but the plain language of claim 1 suggests that the
limitation encompasses a communications network divided into segments,
each segment including a segment management module, one or more
routers, and a plurality of communications links that connect each router to
one or more other routers.
On its face, the term “segmented network” in ‘“wherein the
communications network is configured as a segmented network” indicates
that the communications network is configured as a network divided into
segments. Claim 1 further recites “[a] communications network comprising
a plurality of network segments” that each include “a segment management
module”; “one or more routers”; and “a plurality of communications links,
the communications links connecting each router to one or more other
Appeal 2018-008569
Application 13/997,562

5
routers.” Appeal Br. 20. This language shows that each network segment
includes a segment management module, one or more routers, and a plurality
of communications links that connect each router to one or more other
routers.
The written description describes a similar communications network.
The written description discloses a communications network that includes a
plurality of network segments. See Spec. 3, Fig. 1 (showing an example of a
communications network that includes a plurality of different network
segments). The written description discloses that each network segment is
associated with a “network segment management module” and contains
communication links and network elements such as routers, switches, and
bridges. See Spec. 3, Fig. 2 (showing a network segment). The written
description discloses that the communication links interconnect the routers
within a network segment and provide connections to routers in other
network segments. See Spec. 3. The written description further discloses that
the communication network “is divided into a number of network
segments.” Spec. 4. Taking into account these statements from the written
description and the plain language of claim 1, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “wherein the communications network is configured as a
segmented network” encompasses a communications network divided into
network segments that each include (1) a segment management module, (2)
one or more routers, and (3) a plurality of communications links that connect
each router to one or more other routers.
As found by the Examiner, see Ans. 3–4, Steinberg teaches such a
communications network. Steinberg discloses interconnected core and
access networks. See, e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 22–23, Abstract, Fig. 1. Steinberg
Appeal 2018-008569
Application 13/997,562

6
teaches that each core network includes a core path optimization (CPO)
function (“a segment management module”); routers (“one or more
routers”); and paths between and among core network elements (“a plurality
of communications links”). See, e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 13, 22, 24–25, 28–29, 46–
47, 59, Figs. 1, 2. Steinberg teaches that access networks have a similar
access network path optimization (APO) function (“a segment management
module”); routing functionality and a network interface for routing (“one or
more routers”); and paths between and among access network elements (“a
plurality of communications links”). See, e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 13, 23, 28–29,
46–47, 59 Figs. 1, 2.
Steinberg describes the core network’s and access network’s resources
(or resources under each network’s control) as “segments,” Steinberg ¶ 29,
and depicts communication paths between core networks, access networks,
and combinations of the two, see, e.g., Steinberg Fig 1. Steinberg also
teaches that a core network segment can include access networks and other
core networks, that an access network segment can include other access
networks, and that other network divisions into core and access networks
may be made. See, e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 29, 32. In light of these disclosures and
teachings, a group of core networks, access networks, or combinations of the
two that have communication paths between or among them satisfy the
“wherein the communications network is configured as a segmented
network” limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Appellant’s argument that Steinberg’s core and access networks are
not part of a single network runs contrary to Steinberg’s disclosure.
Steinberg repeatedly discloses that its core and access networks can form
part of a single larger network. See, e.g., Steinberg Abstract, ¶¶ 9, 32, 59, 61,
Appeal 2018-008569
Application 13/997,562

7
Fig. 1. In any case, as discussed above, any group of core networks or access
networks with communication paths between or among them satisfies the
disputed limitation, not just combinations of these network types. For at least
these reasons, we find this argument unpersuasive.
Appellant’s argument that the first two full paragraphs on page 10 of
the written description prohibit interpreting “segmented network” to
encompass Steinberg’s core and access networks is equally unpersuasive.
These paragraphs of the written description describes features not recited in
claim 1 such as a supervisor module accessing “real-time QoS parameters”
to make predictions about the health of a network segment and a network
segment rerouting data “solely within the network segment.” Spec. 10.
Appellant has not persuasively explained why we should read these features
into claim 1, and we see no reason to do so. See Constant v. Advanced
Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Although the
specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed
language in the claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in
the specification will not generally be read into the claims.”).
For the same reason, we find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that
Steinberg teaches “routing,” not “re-routing within a respective segment.”
Reply Br. 3. Claim 1 does not recite “re-routing within a respective
segment,” see Appeal Br. 20, and Appellant has not provided a persuasive
reason to import this limitation from the written description into claim 1, see
Constant, 848 F.2d at 1571. Regardless, Steinberg teaches rerouting within a
network segment. For example, Steinberg teaches that core and access
network optimize paths based on their resources or the resources under their
respective control, both when establishing a communication session and
Appeal 2018-008569
Application 13/997,562

8
when handing off a communication session. See, e.g., Steinberg ¶¶ 5, 13,
23–24, 27–29, 59, Figs 1, items 155, 160, 165, 170, Fig. 3A, item 300. Core
and access networks performing this optimization for their resources or the
resources under their control when handing off a communication session
teaches rerouting data flows within the respective network segment.7
Appellant next argues “that there is no apparent reason to combine
Kings and Steinberg” because the “references teach the skilled artisan
different methods for operating a network.” Appeal Br. 18. In Appellant’s
view, Kings’s and Steinberg’s teachings are “completely unrelated” and
“have virtually no common ground.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant also contends
that neither Kings nor the claimed invention includes core or access
networks, and the Examiner has not explained “how the combination of the
two references was supposed to work or why what would result would
correspond with what is claimed.” Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).
We disagree. The Examiner found that Steinberg teaches the recited
network segments and communications network configuration and Kings
teaches the other limitations recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 9–11; Ans. 3–
4. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to incorporate
Steinberg’s teachings into Kings’s system to take advantage of the path
optimization disclosed in Steinberg. See Final Act. 10–11. Kings’s system
works with communications networks (including large telecommunications
networks) to predict future alarm events and suggest potential solutions. See

7 If Appellant contends that the “wherein the communications network is
configured as a segmented network” limitation calls for a network that
includes the recited “global network management module,” the Examiner
found that the combination of Kings and Steinberg teaches or suggests such
a network. See Final Act. 9–11.
Appeal 2018-008569
Application 13/997,562

9
Kings 1–5, 15. Steinberg’s system optimizes routing or path selection for a
communication session in mobile or wireless communication networks. See
Steinberg ¶¶ 1, 9, Fig. 1. Combining Kings’s and Steinberg’s inventions in
the way proposed by the Examiner would result in a communications system
that is configured in the claimed manner and takes advantage of Steinberg’s
path optimization, which would be particularly useful for the large
telecommunications networks disclosed by Kings. We therefore find
Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Finally, Appellant asserts that because Kings “does not teach or
suggest a segmented network, it cannot possibly disclose a global network
management module that performs operations (a) through (c)” as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. But the Examiner found that Steinberg teaches a
segmented network and concluded that claim 1 would have been obvious in
light of the combination of Steinberg’s and Kings’s teachings. See Final Act.
3–4, 9–11; Ans. 3–6. Appellant’s arguments against Kings individually have
not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.”).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and found them
unpersuasive. We thus sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
§ 103(a). Because Appellant does not present separate, persuasive arguments
for claims 2–5, 7–22, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims under § 103(a). The following table summarizes our decision for
claims 1–5 and 7–22, the claims before us on appeal:
Appeal 2018-008569
Application 13/997,562

10

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 7–
12, 14–22 103(a) Kings, Steinberg
1, 2, 4, 5, 7–
12, 14–22
3, 13 103(a) Kings, Steinberg, Levy 3, 13
Overall
Outcome 1–5, 7–22

No 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