Ex Parte Basu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 17, 2011

10652255 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 17, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PRITWISH BASU and JASON KEITH REDI
____________

Appeal 2009-011488
Application 10/652,255
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-011488
Application 10/652,255

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-55. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The Disclosed Invention
The disclosed invention includes a method and an apparatus for
achieving biconnectivity in a network. In the invention, a view is generated
of the network topology. (Spec. FIG. 8, step 820.) Next, a block tree based
on the network topology is generated. (Spec. FIG. 8, step 830.) The block
with the maximum number of nodes is then selected as the root block.
(Spec. FIG. 8, step 840.) Next, other blocks are identified as leaf blocks.
(Spec. FIG. 8, step 850.) Leaf blocks are then moved to make the network
biconnected. (Spec. FIG. 8, step 860.)

Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. A method for achieving biconnectivity in a network that includes a
plurality of nodes, the method comprising:
forming blocks from groups of one or more of the nodes in the
network;
selecting one of the blocks as a root block;
identifying other ones of the blocks as leaf blocks; and
collectively moving the nodes in one or more of the leaf blocks to
make the network biconnected.

The Examiner rejected claims 38, 39, and 49 as obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Garg (Improved Approximation Algorithms for
Appeal 2009-011488
Application 10/652,255

3
Biconnected Subgraphs via Better Lower Bounding Techniques) and Li
(Sending Messages to Mobile Users in Disconnected Ad-hoc Wireless
Networks). (Ans. 4.)
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-28, 30-37, and 40-42 as
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Garg, Li, and Templin (U.S.
2001/0040895 A1, Nov. 15, 2001). (Ans. 6.)
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 29 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Garg, Li, Templin and Jennings (Topology Control for
Efficient Information Dissemination in Ad-hoc Networks). (Ans. 17.)
The Examiner rejected claim 10 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Garg, Li, Templin, and Liao (A Fully Location-Aware Routing
Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks). (Ans. 17-18.)
The Examiner rejected claims 43, 44, 46, and 47 as obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Garg, Li, Liao, and Gibson (U.S. 6,362,821 B1,
Mar. 26, 2002). (Ans. 18-22.)
The Examiner rejected claim 45 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Garg, Li, Liao, Gibson, and Proctor (U.S. 5,960,047, Sep. 28,
1999). (Ans. 22.)
The Examiner rejected claim 48 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Garg, Li, and Liao. (Ans. 23.)
The Examiner rejected claims 50-52, and 54 as obvious under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Hsu (Simpler and Faster Biconnectivity
Augmentation) and Li. (Ans. 25.)
The Examiner rejected claims 53 and 55 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Hsu, Li, and Lin (Adaptive Clustering for Wireless
Networks). (Ans. 26.)
Appeal 2009-011488
Application 10/652,255

4

ISSUES
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issues:
Does the combination of Garg, Li, and Templin render obvious the
step of “collectively moving the nodes in one or more of the leaf blocks to
make the network biconnected,” as recited in independent claim 1, and as
similarly recited in independent claims 19, and 21?
Does the combination of Garg, and Li, render obvious the step of
“causing one or more of the nodes in the network to move to systematically
remove the cut vertices from the network and form a biconnected network,”
as recited in independent claim 38, and as similarly recited in independent
claims 39, and 49?
Does the combination of Garg, Li, Liao, and Gibson render obvious
the step of “moving each of one or more of the nodes a weighted distance
towards the geographic center to transform the non-biconnected network to a
biconnected network,” as recited in independent claim 46 and as similarly
recited in independent claim 47?
Does the combination of Garg, Li, and Liao render obvious the
function of “causing each of one or more of the nodes to move towards the
geographic center to transform the non-biconnected network to a
biconnected network,” as recited in independent claim 48?
Does the combination of Hsu and Li render obvious the step of
“causing one or more of the nodes to move based on the determined
movement schedule to form a biconnected network from the one-
Appeal 2009-011488
Application 10/652,255

5
dimensional non-biconnected network,” as recited in independent claim 50
and as similarly recited in independent claim 54?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that the combination of Garg, Li and Templin
renders claims 1, 19 and 21 obvious. (Ans. 7.) But as explained by
Appellants, the Examiner has not shown that the combination renders
obvious the claimed step of “collectively moving the nodes in one or more
of the leaf blocks to make the network biconnected.” (App. Br. 7-10.) In
particular, the only reference of the three that even mentions biconnectivity
(i.e., Garg) does not achieve biconnectivity by moving nodes. (See e.g.,
Ans. 6-8.) Garg does not even mention moving nodes at all. (Id.) Rather,
Garg determines the lower bound on the number of edges in a biconnected
graph while maintaining its biconnectivity. (Garg p. 103, col. 1, ll. 11-19.)
And the only reference that mentions moving nodes (i.e., Li) does not even
mention biconnectivity, let alone show how biconnectivity can be achieved
by moving nodes. (App. Br. 9-10.) Moreover, the remaining reference,
Templin, would not have provided any motivation to modify the technique
of Garg to achieve biconnectivity by moving nodes. Indeed, Templin
teaches away from modifying Garg’s technique to move nodes because it
states that moving nodes “may diminish the quality of the communications
with another node….” (App. Br. 8-9, 12; Reply Br. 6, citing Templin
¶[0039].) In other words, Templin would have taught one of ordinary skill
in the art to leave the technique of Garg alone, rather than to somehow
modify it to move nodes. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1, 19, and 21.
Appeal 2009-011488
Application 10/652,255

6
For similar reasons, we will also not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 38, 39, 46-49. Each of these claims also recites the
limitation of moving nodes to achieve biconnectivity. Moreover, the
Examiner bases his rejections of these claims on the reasoning that one of
ordinary skill in the art would modify Garg to move nodes, and this
reasoning has been shown to have no merit, as explained above.
With respect to independent claims 50 and 54, the Examiner found
that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to modify the disclosure of Hsu with that of Li in order
to provide for a method for the semi-autonomous robotic nodes of Li’s
disclosure to efficiently orient and network themselves in a biconnected
network…” (Ans. 25.) But only Hsu even mentions a biconnected network.
(See Ans. 24-26.) And Hsu does not achieve biconnectivity by moving any
nodes; it does not even mention moving nodes at all. (Id.) Rather, Hsu
achieves biconnectivity using linear programming techniques. (Hsu
Sections 1 and 3.) Accordingly, we are not convinced that one of ordinary
skill in the art would modify the techniques taught in a reference that doesn’t
even mention biconnectivity (i.e., Li) and use the modified techniques in
algorithms that seek to achieve biconnectivity using linear programming
techniques, as disclosed in Hsu. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 50 and 54.
Moreover, although the Examiner rejected some of the dependent
claims based not only on the references recited with respect to the
independent claims but also based on additional secondary references, the
Examiner does not assert that any of the additional secondary references
disclose the claim limitations that are missing from the references cited for
Appeal 2009-011488
Application 10/652,255

7
the independent claims. (See Ans. 4-27.) Accordingly, we will also not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of any of the dependent claims.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-55.

REVERSED

ke