Arunkumar Jayaraman et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 10, 2020

2019000742 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 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.
14/929,991 11/02/2015 Arunkumar Jayaraman GOOGLE 3.0F-1950 (E) 5596
78792 7590 06/10/2020
GOOGLE
Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP
20 Commerce Drive
Cranford, NJ 07016
EXAMINER
COX, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2020 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):
eOfficeAction@lernerdavid.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARUNKUMAR JAYARAMAN, PETER GELBMAN,
MICHAEL JOHN HART, and RAJKUMAR SAMUEL
________________

Appeal 2019-000742
Application 14/929,991
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1‒20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

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 Google
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000742
Application 14/929,991

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to a cloud-managed point-to-multipoint
mesh network that centrally handles routing and scheduling changes during
link loss. Spec. ¶¶ 1‒4. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and
reads as follows:
1. A system for managing a network, comprising:
a plurality of network nodes interconnected via a plurality
of primary links;
a controller in communication with the plurality of
network nodes, the controller including one or more processors
configured to:
provide an event profile to the plurality of network
nodes, the event profile indicating possible link loss
scenarios, including potential combinations of failed links,
and routing changes to be implemented by each of the
plurality of nodes in the possible link loss scenarios; and
wherein each of the plurality of nodes is configured
to:
store the event profile;
determine that a particular link loss event
occurred;
determine, based on the event profile, routing
changes for the particular link loss event; and
implement the determined routing changes;
and
broadcast the particular link loss event on all
available links.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 12‒15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jardetzky (US 6,392,989 B1; May 21,
Appeal 2019-000742
Application 14/929,991

3
2002), Iovanna (US 2014/0078895 A1; Mar. 20, 2014), and Nason (US
2007/0206583 A1; Sept. 6, 2007). Final Act. 2‒10.
Claims 3, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jardetzky, Iovanna, Nason, and Matsubara (US
2015/0026507 A1; Jan. 22, 2015). Final Act. 10‒12.
Claims 4‒7, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jardetzky, Iovanna, Nason, and Surasinghe (US
2007/0067663 A1; Mar. 22, 2007). Final Act. 12‒16.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Jardetzky, Iovanna, and
Nason teaches or suggests a controller including one or more processors
configured to “provide an event profile to the plurality of network nodes . . .
wherein each of the plurality of nodes is configured to: store the event
profile,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3‒4; Ans. 4‒8.
In particular, the Examiner finds Iovanna teaches a combination of
templates, recovery schemes, and corresponding parameters, which the
Examiner finds teaches or suggests the “event profile” recited in claim 1. See
Ans. 6. The Examiner finds Iovanna teaches a path computation engine that
feeds outputs such as working paths, recovery paths, or other recovery
information to nodes. Id. (citing Iovanna ¶ 69). The Examiner finds “it is
implied that other recovery information encompasses templates, descriptions
of recovery schemes, and corresponding parameters as these recovery
related data are used by the PCE for routine and recovery selection.” Id.
The Examiner further finds Iovanna teaches a distributed control
plane coupled to a plurality of switching nodes, where path computation
occurs in the distributed control plane. Id. (citing Iovanna ¶¶ 96‒97). The
Appeal 2019-000742
Application 14/929,991

4
Examiner finds this implies that “each of the switching nodes operating in a
distributed control plane may undertake path selection.” Id.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred because the combination of
references does not teach or suggest these limitations. Appeal Br. 5‒8;
Reply Br. 1‒2. In particular, Appellant argues that even if the combination
of templates, descriptions of recovery schemes, and corresponding
parameters are considered “event profiles,” nothing in Iovanna teaches or
suggests that this information is provided to the nodes and stored by the
nodes, as claimed. See Reply Br. 2.
Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Iovanna teaches path
computation may be carried out using the combination of templates,
descriptions of recovery schemes, and corresponding parameters in one of
two locations. Iovanna ¶¶ 96‒97. First, path computation may be carried out
dynamically by a path computation element in control plane 12. Id. ¶ 97.
Second, path computation may be carried out offline by an off line path
computation program 5 running on PC 15, which is outside of the network.
Id. In other words, the information the Examiner finds corresponds to the
claimed “event profile” is provided to either the path computation element in
control plane 12 or the offline path computation program 5.
The Examiner has failed to adequately establish that Iovanna provides
this information to the claimed switching nodes. First, the Examiner’s
finding that “it is implied that other recovery information encompasses
templates, descriptions of recovery schemes, and corresponding parameters
as these recovery related data are used by the PCE for routine and recovery
selection” (Ans. 6) is unsupported by Iovanna. Iovanna teaches path
computation engine outputs working paths, recovery paths, or other recovery
Appeal 2019-000742
Application 14/929,991

5
information to nodes. Iovanna ¶ 69. Nothing in Iovanna suggests that the
“other recovery information” includes the inputs path computation engine
uses to perform its computations. The Examiner’s findings to this effect are
speculative and unsupported by the reference.
Second, the Examiner’s finding that it is implied that “each of the
switching nodes operating in a distributed control plane may undertake path
selection” (Ans. 6) is unsupported by Iovanna. To the contrary, Iovanna
teaches the switching nodes are located in packet layer 31 and optical layer
41. Iovanna ¶ 96. Thus, switching nodes do not “operat[e] in a distributed
control plane” as the Examiner finds. The Examiner also has not adequately
supported the finding that the switching nodes “undertake path selection,”
which is a process Iovanna teaches is performed by path computation engine
12. See Iovanna ¶ 69.
For these reasons, the Examiner has failed to sufficiently establish that
Jardetzky, Iovanna, and Nason, alone or in combination, teach or suggest a
controller including one or more processors configured to “provide an event
profile to the plurality of network nodes . . . wherein each of the plurality of
nodes is configured to: store the event profile,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1.2 We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 8 and 18 as unpatentable over Jardetzky, Iovanna, and
Nason.
Claims 2‒7, 9‒17, 19, and 20 stand rejected as unpatentable over
Jardetzky, Iovanna, and Nason, either alone or in combination with one of

2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Appeal 2019-000742
Application 14/929,991

6
Matsubara and Surasinghe. See Final Act. 2‒16. The Examiner does not find
these additional references teach or suggest the disputed limitations. See id.
Accordingly, we also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 2‒7, 9‒17, 19, and 20.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8, 9, 12‒
15, 18, 19
103(a) Jardetzky, Iovanna,
Nason
1, 2, 8, 9, 12‒
15, 18, 19
13, 10, 11 103(a) Jardetzky, Iovanna,
Nason, Matsubara
13, 10, 11
4‒7, 16, 17,
20
103(a) Jardetzky, Iovanna,
Nason, Surasinghe
4‒7, 16, 17,
20
Overall
Outcome
1‒20

REVERSED