Ex Parte Allan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2016

12435973 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/435,973 0510512009
22474 7590 02/09/2016
Clements Bernard PLLC
4500 Cameron Valley Parkway
Suite 350
Charlotte, NC 28211
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Allan
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10.2026 4452
EXAMINER
RIV AS, SALVADORE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2016 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):
patlaw@worldpatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID ALLAN, NIGEL BRAGG, and
JEROME CHIABAUT
Appeal2014-003352
Application 12/435,973
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants filed this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-003352
Application 12/435,973
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for multicast
implementation in a routed Ethernet mesh network. Spec., Title; Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of implementing multicast on a routed
Ethernet mesh network, the method comprising:
receiving, by a node on the routed Ethernet mesh
network, a plurality of link state advertisements each specifying
an end-point of a multicast tree to be implemented on the routed
Ethernet mesh network, at least one of the link state
advertisements further specifying an algorithm being used to
calculate the multicast tree;
determining whether there is agreement between the
specified algorithm and an algorithm to be used by the node on
the routed Ethernet mesh network, and when there is
agreement, using the specified algorithm, by the node on the
routed Ethernet mesh network, to calculate the multicast tree;
and
selectively installing forwarding state for the multicast
tree if the node on the routed Ethernet mesh network is on the
path of the multicast tree between two nodes each advertising
an end-point of the multicast tree.
REJECTIONS
RI. Claims 1--4 and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Smith et al. (US 2007/0165657 Al; published July 19, 2007), Kano
(US 2007/0047465 Al; published March 1, 2007) and Partridge et al. (FIRE:
Flexible Intra-AS Routing Environment, 19:3 IEEE J. ON SELECTED AREAS
IN COMMUNICATION 410, 410--425 (2001)). Final Act. 3-11.
R2. Claims 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Smith, Kano, Partridge, and Cain (US 6,650,626 Bl, issued Nov. 18, 2003).
Final Act. 12-16.
2
Appeal2014-003352
Application 12/435,973
R3. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Smith,
Kano, Partridge, Cain, and Sabesan et al. (US 2006/0010249 Al, published
Jan. 12, 2006). Final Act. 16-18.
R4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Smith, Kano, Partridge, Cain, and Heckerman et al. (US 6,529,888 Bl,
issued March 4, 2003). Final Act. 18-19.
R5. Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Smith, Kano, Partridge, Cain, Heckerman, and Ji et al. (US 6,831,895 B 1,
issued Dec. 14, 2004). Final Act. 19-24.
R6. Claims 14 and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Smith, Kano, Partridge, Cain, and Ji. Final Act. 24--29.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Partridge fails to disclose the limitation of claim 1
reciting "determining whether there is agreement between the specified
algorithm and an algorithm to be used by the node on the routed Ethernet
mesh network, and when there is agreement, using the specified algorithm,
by the node on the routed Ethernet mesh network, to calculate the multicast
tree." App. Br. 7. Appellants advance a similar argument with respect to
claim 17. Id. at 8.
We agree with Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds the
Specification discloses no defined agreement between two algorithms, but
rather just a single algorithm (see Ans. 3-5), citing paragraph 17 as follows:
"Where hello messages or another mechanism is used to agree
on the algorithm to be used for multicast tree implementation,
and a spanning tree algorithm is used, the root may be
established by encoding the root in the hello handshake. . ..
3
Appeal2014-003352
Application 12/435,973
For example, the nodes may agree on the algorithm used to
elect the root in IS-IS (i.e. lowest ID or highest ID bridge) and
then the nodes may run the algorithm on the topology to figure
out which bridge is the root."
Applying the principle of broadest reasonable interpretation (see In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004)), the Examiner
interprets "agreement between the specified algorithm and an algorithm to
be used by the node" as equating to Partridge's Figures 1 and 2 and page
410, set forth as follows:
The Flexible intra-AS routing environment (FIRE) is an attempt
to provide a more flexible routing system without sacrificing
forwarding performance. Operators control a variety of key
routing functions, including choosing which algorithms are
used to select paths, choosing what information is used by the
algorithms, and identifying traffic classes to be forwarded
according to the specified algorithms.
The Examiner also relies on Partridge's teaching that any" ... information
needed by routing algorithms to construct forwarding tables must be
distributed throughout the network." Partridge, 413 (Section V).
The claimed limitation requires inter alia a node receiving a link state
advertisement specifying an algorithm being used to calculate a multicast
tree, and determining whether there is agreement between the specified
algorithm and an algorithm to be used by the node. In the excerpts of
Partridge cited by the Examiner, the claimed limitations are not disclosed.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner found the claimed
"determining" disclosed in Kano, paragraph 14, set forth as follows:
route information is obtained by performing a route calculation
(routing algorithm) based on, for example, the information in the
0-LSA.
4
Appeal2014-003352
Application 12/435,973
This statement falls short of disclosing the 0-LSA specifies the
routing algorithm that is determined to be in agreement with one to be used
by the node receiving the 0-LSA. Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants'
arguments that the cited references do not disclose the claimed limitations.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections of claims 1 and 17.
Our reversal of the rejection of independent claims 1 and 1 7
necessitates reversal of the rejection of their dependent claims.
Our decision on this ground renders it unnecessary to address
Appellants' remaining arguments.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejections of claims 1-21 are reversed.
REVERSED
5