Ex Parte Allan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 6, 2014

11477975 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte DAVID ALLAN, NIGEL BRAGG, and
MARC HOLNESS
________________

Appeal 2011-012513
Application 11/477,975
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before: MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JAMES P. CALVE, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012513
Application 11/477,975

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-18. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates generally to Ethernet and, in
particular, to Ethernet rings for Metro Area Networks.” Spec. para. [0002].
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A method of routing frame-based traffic over a resilient
virtual ring having a working path and a protection path, the
method comprising steps of:
selecting one of the working path and the protection path
to carry the traffic, the protection path being different from the
working path;
defining, for each node of the ring, a plurality of unique
ring tags, the plurality of unique ring tags uniquely identifying
the corresponding node and the selected one of the working
path and the protection path to carry the traffic; and
tagging frames entering the virtual ring with one of the
plurality of unique ring tags to uniquely identify both the node
that has tagged the frames and the selected one of the working
path and the protection path.

REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Castro US 2006/0039371 A1 Feb. 23, 2006
Zelig US 2006/0109802 A1 May 25, 2006
Nagamine US 7,065,040 B2 Jun. 20, 2006
Donoghue US 7,167,441 B2 Jan. 23, 2007
Amis US 7,639,709 B1 Dec. 29, 2009
Drummond-Murray GB 2 357 390 A Jun. 20, 2001
Appeal 2011-012513
Application 11/477,975

3

THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
1. Claims 1-5, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Drummond-Murray (hereinafter “Drummond”) and
Nagamine. Ans. 4, 14.
2. Claims 6, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drummond, Nagamine, and Zelig. Ans. 7.
3. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drummond, Nagamine, and Donoghue. Ans. 10.
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Drummond, Nagamine, and Castro. Ans. 11.
5. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Drummond, Nagamine, Castro, and Amis. Ans. 12.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-5, 11-13, and 16-18
as being unpatentable over Drummond and Nagamine
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 11 together. App. Br. 4-7.
We select method claim 1 for review with claim 11 and dependent claims 5
and 16-18 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2011). Appellants also argue dependent claims 2 and 12 together. App. Br.
7-9. We select claim 2 for review with claims 3, 4, and 13 standing or
falling with claim 2.
Claim 1
The Examiner relies primarily on Drummond for disclosing the
limitations of claim 1, including the identification of “the corresponding
node and the selected one of the working path or the protection path to carry
Appeal 2011-012513
Application 11/477,975

4
the traffic.” Ans. 4 (citations omitted). The Examiner finds that information
inserted into the node as taught by Drummond “indicates the source node,
which nodes have received the packet, and on which port the packet is
received thereby indicating the direction of travel.” Ans. 4. However, the
Examiner relies on Nagamine for disclosing “multiple node IDs per node
and that these IDs are different for different combinations of port, ring and
path for frames being sent through the node.” Ans. 5 (citations omitted).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine
Drummond and Nagamine “to explain how to identify nodes and protection
paths in the event of a failure in a multi-ring environment and thereby
optimize switching circuits around a failure.” Ans. 5 referencing Nagamine
2:62-67.
Appellants contend that “Drummond does not disclose a ring tag that
also indicates whether a working path or a protection path is selected” and
more succinctly that Drummond “makes no provisions for a separate
protection path.” App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 3-4. The Examiner notes
that Drummond does not use the terms “working path” or “protection path”
but that Nagamine, which is “in a related art,” does. Ans. 5 referencing
Nagamine 4:14-18. The Examiner finds that Drummond “describes a duplex
ring network environment” and that Drummond explains “this to mean that
network transmissions occur in two directions around the ring” and further
that “each port [is] connected via physically different lines.” Ans. 16
(citations omitted). The Examiner finds that Drummond’s duplex or two-
path arrangement “describes the functionality as one path being the primary
path and the second can operate as a protection path.” Ans. 16. In
conclusion, the Examiner finds that “[w]hile Drummond doesn’t refer to the
Appeal 2011-012513
Application 11/477,975

5
two rings as a working path and a protection path, Drummond’s rings
provide an equivalent functionality.” Ans. 16. Appellants do not explain
how Drummond’s two-path arrangement (see, e.g., Drummond Fig. 2) fails
to disclose, or function as, a working path and a protection path as claimed.
Accordingly, Appellants’ contention that Drummond “makes no provisions
for a separate protection path” (App. Br. 5) is not persuasive.
Appellants further contend that “[t]here is nothing in Nagamine’s
routing table that indicates whether a working path or a protection path is
selected.” App. Br. 5; see also App. Br. 6 and Reply Br. 5. However, the
Examiner does not rely on Nagamine for the step of selecting between a
working path or a protection path; instead, the Examiner relies on the
teachings of Drummond for this. Ans. 4, 16. Our reviewing court provides
instruction that “[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A. 1981)).
Accordingly, Appellants’ contention is not persuasive.
Appellants also reference Nagamine for failing to “assign a ring tag”
(App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 5) but the Examiner relies on Drummond for
this limitation, not Nagamine. Ans. 4, 17. Appellants further contend that
“Drummond does not disclose” the suggestion “that each ring node is
associated with ‘a plurality of ring tags’” and that “Nagamine does not cure
this deficiency.” App. Br. 6. First, the Examiner relies on Nagamine for
disclosing this limitation, not Drummond. Ans. 5, 17. Furthermore,
Appellants do not explain how Nagamine fails to disclose “multiple node
IDs per node and that these IDs are different for different combination of
Appeal 2011-012513
Application 11/477,975

6
port, ring, and path” taken by the packet as found by the Examiner. See Ans.
5 and 18-19 both referencing Nagamine Fig. 2 node C and 5:29-42. In other
words, Appellants do not explain or otherwise present any evidence as to
how Nagamine’s Figure 2 fails to disclose multiple, yet different, node IDs
per node or how the Examiner’s finding of such is in error. Appellants’
contention is not persuasive.
Appellants further argue, when addressing Nagamine, that “it is
inaccurate to equate a node ID with a ring tag.” App. Br. 7. We note that
the Examiner relies on Drummond for disclosing the assignment of a ring
tag (Ans. 4) and further that the Examiner notes that “[Appellants don’t]
dispute that Drummond includes a ring tag.” Ans. 17. In short, Appellants
do not explain how it is not accurate to equate Drummond’s node ID with a
ring tag.
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Appellants
contend that the ring tag described in the Specification assigns directional
information so that “the ring tag can be used to identify the direction of
transport around the ring” and that “[s]uch teachings simply aren’t present in
Drummond or Nagamine.” App. Br. 8. Appellants’ contention is in conflict
with Drummond’s teaching, which expressly describes ascertaining, via the
inserted information, the direction of travel of the packet. Drummond 3:30-
33, 7:21-31, 9:20-23; see also Ans. 20. Appellants do not explain how their
contention is not contrary to these teachings and accordingly, Appellants’
contention is not persuasive.
Appellants also contend that certain references to Drummond made by
the Examiner do not disclose that for which it was relied upon. App. Br. 8.
Appeal 2011-012513
Application 11/477,975

7
Be this as it may, the Examiner supplements the list of citations on this point
(Ans. 20), and Appellants do not continue in their assertion on this topic.
Appellants also contend that “Nagamine is no better” for this teaching (i.e.,
“using a ring tag to identify a direction of transport around a ring,” App. Br.
8), but the Examiner relies on Drummond for this teaching, not Nagamine.
Ans. 4, 20.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 11-13, and 16-18.
Regarding the remaining dependent claims 6-10, 14, and 15,
Appellants contend that they “are believed patentable at least by virtue of
their dependency on one or another of their respective base independent
Claims 1 and 11, whose patentability is discussed above” or by “virtue of
their dependency from Claim 2.” App. Br. 9. As no other arguments are
presented for claims 6-10, 14, and 15, we likewise sustain their rejection
based on our discussion supra of their respective parent claim.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-18 are affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

llw