Ex Parte Ansari et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 9, 201311147665 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/147,665 06/08/2005 Furquan Ahmed Ansari Ansari 3-42-4-25-35 (LCNT 6552 46363 7590 09/09/2013 WALL & TONG, LLP/ ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. 25 James Way Eatontown, NJ 07724 EXAMINER ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/09/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FURQUAN AHMED ANSARI, TIRUNELL V. LAKSHMAN, THYAGARAJAN NANDAGOPAL, RAMACHANDRAN RAMJEE, and THOMAS Y. WOO ____________ Appeal 2011-000803 Application 11/147,665 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000803 Application 11/147,665 2 SUMMARY Before us is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a method of performing protocol failovers. (App. Br. 3). Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1. A computer readable medium for storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, perform a method of performing protocol failovers by centralizing and allowing sharing of complexity, comprising: providing, at a forwarding element (FE), a protocol overlay process for a particular protocol and a routing table manager (RTM) process wherein the FE is deconstructed; receiving, by the FE, routing protocol messages from an active-protocol-control element (CE) and, in response, propagating the routing protocol messages to all protocol CEs, heartbeat messages being piggybacked on the received routing protocol messages wherein the CE centralizes and shares the complexity of the FE; receiving, by the FE, acknowledgements from the active- protocol-CE in response to sent messages; and initiating, by the FE, failover to a backup-protocol-CE, upon failure of the active-protocol-CE. The Rejections 1) Claims 1-13 and 16-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as including unpatentable subject matter. 2) Claims 1 and 3-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yang et al., Forwarding and Control Element Appeal 2011-000803 Application 11/147,665 3 Separation (ForCE) Framework “RFC3746” (April, 2004), pp 1-27 and Khosravi (U.S. 7,197,664 B2). 3) Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yang, Khosravi, and Albert (U.S. 6,633,560 B1). ISSUES Appellants’ response to the Examiner’s positions presents the following issues: 1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-13 and 16-17 under § 101? 2) Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited art teaches or suggests “a protocol overlay process for a particular protocol,” as recited by claim 1? 3) Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited art teaches or suggests “providing, at a forwarding element (FE), a protocol overlay process for a particular protocol and a routing table manager (RTM) process wherein the FE is deconstructed,” as recited by claim 1? 4) Would the combination of Yang and Khosravi render Yang unsatisfactory for its intended purpose? ANALYSIS Appellants address the Examiner’s §101 rejection by stating: “Although Appellants are not acquiescing to the Examiner’s characterizations of the objections, however, this is a minor issue, which can be addressed subsequent to resolving the statutory rejections.” (App. Br. 11). As such, we have no disputed issues before us. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those Appeal 2011-000803 Application 11/147,665 4 uncontested aspects of the rejection.”). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-13 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appellants argue that Yang does not teach a specific protocol as required by claim 1. (App. Br. 13). However, the claim does not contain a limitation that specifies a certain protocol. Instead, the claim language recites “a protocol overlay process for a particular protocol.” In addition, the Specification indicates that the invention is directed to a broad array of protocols. (Spec. 4:27-31(“the invention is applicable to … gateway protocols, serial line protocols, protocol stack routing and bridging protocols, [and] many other protocols…”)). Thus, the Appellants have not persuaded us of error. Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in finding Khosravi to teach or suggest “a routing table manger (RTM) process wherein the FE is deconstructed.” (App. Br. 13). Appellants urge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “FE is deconstructed” to comprise dynamic binding. In support of this argument, Appellants cite the Specification, which states “dynamic binding ability is a feature of the concept of deconstructed routers that have separate control and forwarding functions.” (App. Br. 13-14 (citing Spec. 11:11-13)). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that this statement from the Specification does not limit the scope of the claim language. (Ans. 15). The Examiner goes on to interpret “FE is deconstructed” to mean that “when a Forwarding element detects a failure in the primary control element, [it] may switch to secondary control element. Thus, the forwarding element treats it like a primary control element.” (Ans. 15). The Appellants aver that this interpretation is inconsistent with the Specification. (Reply Br. 3-4 (citing Spec. 11:3-13)). Appeal 2011-000803 Application 11/147,665 5 We disagree. As noted above, the cited portion of the Specification does not provide a definition for “FE is deconstructed” and the Appellants have not directed us to persuasive evidence showing an inconsistency between the Specification and the Examiner’s reasonable interpretation. The Appellants do not dispute that Khosravi teaches or suggests the limitation as interpreted by the Examiner. (See App. Br. 13 (“Khosravi indeed discloses a fast fail- over between redundant control elements.”)). Thus, we are not convinced of error. Finally, the Appellants argue that the combination of Yang and Khosravi is improper because it would render Yang unsuitable for its intended purpose. (App. Br. 15-16). We disagree. Appellants concede that Khosravi is a specific implementation of the framework described in Yang. (App. Br. 16). As such, we see no error in the Examiner’s combination of Yang and Khosravi. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yang and Khosravi and for similar reasons we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yang, Khosravi, and Albert. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17 is 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 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation