Ex Parte Bichot et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2013

10573842 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GUILLAUME BICHOT, SHAILY VERMA,
and ZORAN KOSTIC
____________

Appeal 2010-007988
Application 10/573,842
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-30, 32-41, and 44-46.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

1
Claims 31, 42, and 43 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2010-007988
Application 10/573,842

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellants, their invention relates to a method for
controlling bandwidth allocation of first and second data packet types in a
network by determining a throughput rate of the first data packet type in the
network and reducing the throughput rate of the first data packet type when
the throughput rate reaches a predetermined level. Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention (disputed limitation italicized):
1. A method for controlling bandwidth allocation of
transmission control protocol data packet types and second data
packet types in a network, said method comprising:
determining, by an intermediate device, a throughput rate
of at least one of said transmission control protocol data packet
types in said network; and
reducing, by said intermediate device, said throughput
rate of said at least one of said data packet types through said
network when said throughput rate reaches a predetermined
level.
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 7-14, 18-24, 26, 28-30, 32-35, 39-
41, and 44-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Mahiddini
(US 2003/0084182 A1, May 1, 2003).
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 15-17, 25, 27, and 36-38 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mahiddini and Ma (WO
99/04536, Jan. 28, 1999).
Appeal 2010-007988
Application 10/573,842

3
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Mahiddini
discloses “reducing, by said intermediate device, said throughput rate of said
at least one of said data packet types through said network when said
throughput rate reaches a predetermined level,” as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 11.
2
Instead, Appellants argue that Mahiddini “reduces the throughput
rate of all data packet types in accordance with the characteristics of the
individual packet.” Id.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 because Mahiddini fails to
teach the argued limitation?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasoning set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
We agree with the Examiner that Mahiddini teaches the recited
limitation. The Examiner relies on paragraph [0051] of Mahiddini, which
states:
In addition, in this example, the tool 34 includes a
bandwidth smoother 64 which puts limits on the bandwidth in
order to comply with certain predetermined constraints, for
example it calculates bit rate in real time and then adds or
subtracts time in order to keep the bit rate at a constant value.

2
We refer to Appellants’ Revised Appeal Brief dated December 3, 2009.
Appeal 2010-007988
Application 10/573,842

4
Ans. 4-5, 27. Thus, Mahiddini discloses limiting bandwidth (or throughput
rate) in accordance with a predetermined constraint, such as a constant rate
(i.e., a throughput rate at a predetermined level), by adjusting (e.g.,
reducing) the throughput rate.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as well as
independent claims 11, 21, 32, and 41 and the remaining dependent claims,
which Appellants have argued based on the same reasons stated for claim 1.
App. Br. 11-14.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 7-14, 18-24, 26,
28-30, 32-35, 39-41, and 44-46 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 5, 6, 15-17, 25, 27, and
36-38 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-30, 32-41, and 44-46 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

ELD