Ex Parte Bitar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2013

10838780 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/838,780 05/03/2004 INV001Nabil N. Bitar 129250-002187/US 5941
32498 7590 03/19/2013
CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC
P.O. BOX 1995
VIENNA, VA 22183
EXAMINER
HSU, ALPUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2013 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 NABIL N. BITAR, PHILIP TO, and THOMAS A. HOCH
____________________

Appeal 2010-008777
Application 10/838,780
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008777
Application 10/838,780

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-7 and 10-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A system for switching or routing data packets comprising:
(a) one or more ingress elements and one or more egress
elements, wherein the ingress elements receive data packets from
input ports, the egress elements transmit data packets to output ports
and each ingress and egress element includes a control element that
allocates fabric paths,
(b) a switch fabric for transmitting data from the ingress
elements to the egress elements, wherein data is transmitted in
variably-sized payloads of fabric data units (FDUs) having total sizes
varying between a minimum size and a maximum size, wherein each
control element further repeatedly performs each of the steps of
(i) segmenting data packets received by an ingress
element and encapsulating them into the payloads of two or
more FDUs, if the packets’ sizes exceed the maximum FDU
payload size, and encapsulating data packets received by an
ingress element into the payload of a single FDU, if the
packets’ sizes do not exceed the maximum FDU payload size,
and
(ii) transmitting FDUs from the ingress elements through
the switch fabric to the egress elements.

Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 10-22 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kuo (US
7,031,343 Bl) and Kuhl (US 7,212,528 B2).
Appeal 2010-008777
Application 10/838,780

3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 23-25 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Kuo, Kuhl, and Chiussi
(US 2003/0142624 Al).

Appellants’ Contention
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-7 and 10-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Initially, Appellants note the Examiner’s
acknowledgment (see page 4 of the Final Office Action) that
Kuo does not disclose ingress and egress elements, each of
which includes a control element for allocating fabric paths.
To make up for this deficiency the Examiner relies upon Kuhl.
Appellants disagree.
As the Appellants have previously pointed out to the
Examiner, this excerpt is completely silent with respect to the
inclusion of a control element within an ingress and/or egress
element.
(App. Br. 4). Further, Appellants argue:
In the Final Office Action the Examiner again directs the
Appellants to column 4, lines 12-14 of Kuhl (see pages 4 and
11 of the Final Office Action) as purportedly disclosing a
control element within an ingress and/or egress element. The
Examiner adds that the "control element is further shown in
figure 6 as ingress software which assigns data paths between
the ingress card and egress card" (see page 11 of the Final
Office Action).
Again, Appellants have re-read column 4, lines 12-14
and find no implicit or explicit mention of a control element
within an ingress and/or egress element. Further, the discussion
of Figure 6 in Kuhl explicitly states that the ingress software
604 within ingress card 502 and egress software 614 within
egress card 504 are both a part of network element 500 shown
in Figure 5a (see column 11, lines 42-58)---and the network
element 500 in Figure 5a is shown separate from the control
complex 210.
Appeal 2010-008777
Application 10/838,780

4
(App. Br. 5)(emphasis in original).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-7 and 10-25 as being
obvious?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants’ above contentions. Further, figure 6 of
Kuhl which is relied upon by the Examiner shows control complex 210 as
being separate from the egress card 504 and ingress card 502. Kuhl at
column 12, lines 2-3, states that “control complex 210 first assigns a
connection identifier for this traffic flow” and at lines 58-59, “the connection
identifier is used to establish the route for all traffic associated with it”
(emphasis added).
We note the Examiner attempts to read the queuing of Kuhl (Ans. 12)
as the claimed “each ingress and egress element includes a control element
that allocates fabric paths.” However, we agree with Appellants’ response
(Reply Br. 1), and are unpersuaded that such queuing includes path
allocation as required by the claims.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-7 and 10-25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, claims 1-7 and 10-25 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
Appeal 2010-008777
Application 10/838,780

5

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-7 and 10-25 are reversed.

REVERSED

tj