Ex Parte Appalla et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2016

13303347 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

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.
13/303,347 11/23/2011 Rama Suryanarayana Appalla AVA11 -29(911018) 7483
136582 7590 12/28/2016
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
MUI, GARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2464
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2016 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):
pto @ sspatlaw. com
pair_avaya@ firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte
RAMA SURYANARAYANA APPALLA,
PAMELA LEBLANC, and MICHAEL HAIGHT
Appeal 2016-000910
Application 13/303,3471
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SHARON FENICK Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11—16 and 18—24. (Appeal Br. 2.) Claims 3,
10 and 17 have been canceled. (Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to designated router transitions in
broadcast networks. (Abstract.) A network includes a designated router
1 Appellants identify Avaya, Inc. as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-000910
Application 13/303,347
(DR) and an alternate designated router (ADR) and other nodes. Upon
detection of failure of the DR, the ADR floods the network with a link state
packet indicating pseudonode information to be used in the network. At
least one node in the network, upon its detection of failure of the DR, uses
the link state packet to compute new routes which take into account the
failure of the DR. (Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative:
1. A computer-implemented method in which a computer
system performs operations comprising:
detecting, by an Alternate Designated Router (ADR) in a
network, node failure of a Designated Router (DR) prior to other
nodes of said network detecting said failure of said DR;
in response to said detecting node failure of said DR by
said ADR, flooding said network with a link state packet of a
pseudonode within said network;
detecting by at least one other node of said network failure
of said DR; and
computing routes to take into account said failure of said
DR by said at least one other node of said network, wherein there
is minimal traffic loss since said pseudonodes link state packet is
already present before said computing routes takes place.
References and Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 22—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failure to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the
invention. (Final Action 2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11—16 and 18—24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Csaszar et al. (US 2010/0189113 Al;
2
Appeal 2016-000910
Application 13/303,347
July 29, 2010) and Kini et al. (US 2011/0044348 Al; Feb. 24, 2011) (Final
Action 3—11.)
Issues
(A) Did the Examiner err in finding Csaszar teaches or suggests
“detecting, by an Alternate Designated Router (ADR) in a network, node
failure of a Designated Router (DR) prior to other nodes of said network
detecting said failure of said DR,” as recited in claim 1?
(B) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kini and
Csaszar teaches or suggests, “flooding said network with a link state packet
of a pseudonode within said network,” as recited in claim 1?
(C) Did the Examiner err in findings relating to the claim limitation,
“wherein there is minimal traffic loss since said pseudonodes link state
packet is already present before said computing routes takes place,” as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. f 112 rejection
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 22—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, are not addressed by the
Appellants in the Briefs or by the Examiner in the Answer, and thus we
summarily sustain this rejection. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed., rev. July 2015) (“If a ground of
rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, that
ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”); see also In
re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (affirming the Board's
decision to sustain an uncontested rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph and finding the appellant had waived his right to contest
3
Appeal 2016-000910
Application 13/303,347
the indefiniteness rejection by not presenting arguments as to error in the
rejection on appeal to the Board).
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
(A) “detecting, by an Alternate Designated Router (ADR) in a
network, node failure of a Designated Router (DR) prior to
other nodes of said network detecting said failure of said DR ”
The Examiner finds that Csaszar teaches or suggests the detection, by
an ADR, of node failure of a DR, prior to other nodes of the network,
including the determination of higher order entities. (Final Action 3.)
Csaszar is directed towards a recovery method for link failure in a
packet switched network domain with nodes. (Csaszar Abstract, 11.)
Csaszar describes prior art recovery procedures used to mitigate the effects
of link failures. (Id. ^3.) The Examiner cites Csaszar’s disclosure as
teaching the detection of a node failure of a DR by an ADR prior to other
nodes detecting the failure. (Final Action 3.)
Appellants argue that Csaszar does not disclose that detection of a
node failure by an ADR occurs before other nodes detect the failure.
(Appeal Br. 7.) However, as the Examiner finds, Csaszar discloses that
when the router, mapped to the claimed ADR, detects a failure and “floods”
the change of link state to neighboring nodes, “the flood messages act[] as a
notification to the neighbours of the failure.” (Answer 12.) We agree with
the Examiner’s finding. Csaszar discloses that routers in the network learn
of the link failure “either by direct detection or by being informed via
signaling message'1'’ (Csaszar 13, emphasis added). We find that Csaszar’s
disclosure that some routers learn of the link failure via the signaling
message teaches or suggests that some nodes in the network (mapped to the
limitation’s “other nodes of said network”) detect the failure after receiving
4
Appeal 2016-000910
Application 13/303,347
the signal message, i.e., the ADR detects failure of the DR prior to other
nodes detecting the failure. The claims as written do not require this occur
prior to all other nodes detecting the failure.
Appellants, in their Reply Brief, additionally argue that Csaszar does
not mention an ADR, and thus does not disclose or suggest that node failure
is detected by an ADR. (Reply Br. 2.) This argument was raised for the
first time in the Reply Brief without a showing of good cause, and is deemed
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief
which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument
raised in the examiner's answer, including any designated new ground of
rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present
appeal, unless good cause is shown.”)
(B) “flooding said network with a link state packet of a
pseudonode within said network”
The Examiner finds that Csaszar teaches flooding a network with a
link state packet, and that the combination of Csaszar’s teachings with
Kini’s teachings relating to pseudonodes in networks, which form
adjacencies with other network elements, teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation regarding flooding of a network with the link state packet of a
pseudonode. (Final Action 4.)
Appellants argue that, “Kini teaches a pseudonode but fails to teach
flooding the network with a link state packet of a pseudonode.” (Appeal Br.
8.) However, Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s findings
regarding the combination of Csaszar and Kini. The test for obviousness is
whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have
suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the
5
Appeal 2016-000910
Application 13/303,347
art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to this limitation.
(C) “wherein there is minimal traffic loss since said
pseudonodes link state packet is already present before said
computing routes takes place ”
The Examiner finds that the claimed “wherein there is minimal traffic
loss since said pseudonodes link state packet is already present before said
computing routes takes place” merely expresses an intended result. (Final
Action 12.)
In any case, the Examiner additionally finds that the combination of
Csaszar and Kini teaches that a router that learns of the failure through the
flooded message will “obtain the flood message before it recomputes the
routing table” based on the message, and that this prevents “flapping” (two
recomputations.) (Answer 13—14; Final Action 4, 12.) The Examiner
further finds that this would result in the restoration of the network and yield
the claimed result of minimal traffic loss. (Answer at 14.)
Appellants argue, and we agree, that the aforementioned wherein
limitation must be given patentable weight, specifically arguing that “said
pseudonodes link state packet is already present before said computing
routes takes place” should be given weight. (Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3.)
However, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s additional finding that
the combination of Csaszar and Kini teaches this limitation. Therefore, we
are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to this
limitation.
Conclusion: 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
We have reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments in their Appeal
Brief and Reply Brief. We are not convinced the Examiner erred in
6
Appeal 2016-000910
Application 13/303,347
rejecting claim 1, or in rejecting independent claims 8 and 15 and dependent
claims 2, 4—7, 9, 11—14, 16 and 18—24 argued on the same bases (Appeal Br.
8) and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Csaszar and Kini.
DECISION
We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22—24 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite for failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter regarded as the invention.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11—16, and
18—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
7