Ex Parte Boivie et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 11, 2010

10176044 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 11, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RICHARD H. BOIVIE
and NANCY K. FELDMAN
____________
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,0441
Technology Center 2400
____________
Decided: January 11, 2010
____________
Before LEE E. BARRETT, JEAN R. HOMERE, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse but enter a new ground of rejection as to claims 18-20.

1 Filed June 21, 2002, titled "Method and Structure for
Autoconfiguration of Overlay Networks by Automatic Selection of a
Network Designated Router."
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention
The invention relates to a method and structure for automatically
configuring a network including a plurality of interconnected computers.
One of a plurality of computers is configured to assume a role as a
designated router which determines a current network configuration by
determining which computers are currently on-line, using this determined
current network configuration to determine a current network topology that
defines a neighborhood relationship among the interconnected computers
currently on-line, and communicating the current network topology to the
network. The method also includes defining a priority criterion and
automatically selecting one of the computers according to the priority
criterion to serve the role as designated router.

Illustrative claim
Claim 1 is reproduced below for illustration:
1. A method of automatically configuring a network comprising a
plurality of interconnected computers, said method comprising:
configuring more than one computer of said plurality of
computers to assume a role as a designated router, said designated
router determining a current network configuration by determining
which computers of said interconnected computers are currently on-
line, using a determined current network configuration to determine a
current network topology that defines a neighborhood relationship
among said interconnected computers currently on-line, and
communicating said current network topology to said network;
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

3
defining a priority criterion; and
automatically selecting, according to said priority criterion, one
computer of said plurality of computers to serve said role as
designated router.

The references

Ogier US 6,845,091 B2 Jan. 18, 2005
(filed Dec. 1, 2000)
Yip US 6,954,436 B1 Oct. 11, 2005
(filed Feb. 28, 2001)

The rejection
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yip and Ogier.

CONTENTIONS
As to independent claims 1, 18, and 21, the Examiner finds that Yip
describes "configuring more than one computer of said plurality of
computers to assume a role as a designated router," "defining a priority
criterion," and "automatically selecting, according to said priority criterion,
one computer of said plurality of computers to server said role as designated
router." Final Office Action (FOA) 2-3. The Examiner finds that Yip does
not describe "determining a current network configuration by determining
which computers of said interconnected computers are currently on-line,
using a determined current network configuration to determine a current
network topology that defines a neighborhood relationship among said
interconnected computers currently on-line, and communicating said current
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

4
network topology to said network," but that such limitations are taught by
Ogier at column 7, line 54 to column 8, line 18, and column 9, line 66 to
column 10, line 23, and would have suggested modifying Yip "to establish a
new network topology in a timely and efficient manner." FOA 4. The
Examiner similarly finds that Yip does not disclose "determining and
communicating a current network topology" as recited in independent
claim 9 or "determine and communicate a current network topology after
having determined a current network configuration," as recited in
independent claim 15, but that these limitations are taught by the same
portions of Ogier and would have suggested modifying Yip. FOA 4, 9.
Appellants argue that the master router in Yip is elected simply to
serve the role as the router for the subnets for which it is potentially
associated and does not assume any responsibility for configuring a network
or subnet. Br. 11. It is noted that the Examiner concedes that the router in
Yip has nothing to do with configuring a network. Id. Appellants argue Yip
addresses only the problem of determining which router will perform the
role of forwarding packets to a local area network (LAN) and not the
problem addressed by the present invention. Br. 14. It is argued that Yip
has a simple static topology defined by the system administrator, which
eliminates any necessity to recalculate a topology. Id.
Appellants argue that Yip fails to provide the environment of
interconnected computers that forms a network that needs to be configured,
let alone a plurality of interconnected computers where each interconnected
computer could assume the role of the designated router having the task of
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

5
configuration of that network. Br. 12. It is argued that the invention
addresses an entirely different network environment from Yip and to convert
Yip into one that satisfies the claim would inherently change the principle of
operation of Yip. Br. 12, 15.
Appellants argue that the routers in Ogier merely determine and
broadcast their local neighborhood, and that there is no router that receives
this information and uses it to determine network topology, as required by
the claims. Br. 12-13. It is argued that Ogier teaches against the concept of
a designated router having the role to determine the neighborhood
relationship for an entire network. Br. 13.
The Examiner responds:
Ogier et al discloses a network discovery protocol that can
detect the appearance and disappearance of new neighbor nodes.
Ogier et al also discloses sending a topology update in which a link to
a new neighbor node is established, a failure is detected or a change in
cost of a link to an existing neighbor node (col. [sic] col. 7, lines 54-
67, col. 8, lines 1-18, col. 9, lines 66-67 and col. 10, lines 1-23).

Ans. 14.
Appellants argue that there is no designated router in Yip or Ogier
which performs the role of calculating the topology for the entire network.
Br. 16.
The Examiner responds:
According to Appellants specification page 7, the topology of a
network is calculated by determining the on-line routers are
interrelated as neighbors. The Examiner interprets "calculating the
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

6
topology for the entire network" as sending ping messages to all the
routers on the network to determine if any of the routers have failed.

Yip et al discloses a method for electing a master router in a
virtual router network in which the router with the highest priority
value is elected or re-elected as the master. Yip et al also discloses a
master router that is able to ping other routers that are currently alive
according to their tracking parameters. If the tracking parameters for
the routers indicate that new master must be elected, an election
process compares the priority values and elects the router with the
highest priority. Once the new master router is elected, the new
master router knows the current configuration of network based on the
location of the other routers that are currently available based on their
configuration table (abstract, col. 4, lines 59-67 and col. 5, lines 1-8).
Ogier et al also teaches updating the topology of the network when the
node establishes a link to a new neighbor node, a failure is detected or
a change in cost of a link to an existing neighbor node (col. col. 7,
lines 54-67, col. 8, lines 1-18, col. 9, lines 66-67 and col. 10,
lines 1-23).

Ans. 15.
Appellants reply that neither Yip nor Ogier describes or suggests
using a router in a (virtual) network to be designated (e.g., a designated
router) to calculate the network topology of the virtual network, the topology
defining the neighborhood relationships between all the routers currently
on-line in that network. Reply Br. 1. It is argued that in contrast to a
non-virtual network, a virtual network consists of routers that have been
designated to be interconnected to form the virtual network, and it is
important that the neighborhood relationship for the entire virtual network
be established and to be able to adapt the virtual network to changes, such as
routers dropping off or coming on line to the virtual network. Id. at 2.
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

7
Appellants argue that neither reference indicates a necessity to define the
topology of the entire network, so there is no need to designate a router to
perform this function of calculating a network topology. Id. at 3.

ISSUE
The dispositive issue is: Does the combination of Yip and Ogier
describe or suggest a designated network router which determines and
communicates a current network topology?
Claim 1 recites "designated router determining a current network
configuration by determining which computers of said interconnected
computers are currently on-line, using a determined current network
configuration to determine a current network topology that defines a
neighborhood relationship among said interconnected computers currently
on-line, and communicating said current network topology to said network."
Claim 9 recites "said designated network router having a function of
determining and communicating a current network topology." Claim 15
recites "said designated network router having a function to determine and
communicate a current network topology after having determined a current
network configuration." Claim 18 recites "said designated network router
having a function to determine and communicate a current network
topology." Claim 21 recites "said designated network router determining a
current network configuration by determining which computers of said
interconnected computers are currently on-line, using a determined current
network configuration to determine a current network topology that defines
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

8
a neighborhood relationship among said interconnected computers currently
on-line, and communicating said current network topology to said network."
Therefore, all independent claims require a designated network router which
determines and communicates a current network topology.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness requires that the differences between the subject sought
to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and that the
combination teaches all claim limitations. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

FINDINGS OF FACT
Yip
Yip describes a method for electing a master router in a virtual router
network by obtaining a tracking parameter for each of the routers
participating in a virtual router network. Abstract. A priority value is
assigned to each of the plurality of routers and the router with the highest
priority value is elected, or re-elected, as the new master. Id.
A virtual router functions as a default router for the end-hosts on a
network. Col. 1, ll. 34-37.
The tracking parameters include a ping tracking parameter obtained
by pinging the active routes listed in the routing table for each of the routers
participating in the virtual router network. Abstract; col. 2, ll. 19-25; col. 4,
ll. 30-40.
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

9
For example, in Figure 2, if router R3 is found to have a higher
priority than router R4 (using one of three types of tracking parameters),
then R3 will be elected the master router and it sends the new subnet route
for hosts associated with the master router to the other routers on the
network. Col. 4, l. 59 to col. 5, l. 8. That is, the new subnet route 10.2.3.1
for hosts H3 and H4 will be published. Col. 3, ll. 30-53.

Ogier
Ogier notes that a characteristic of wireless networks is that the
entities in the network are mobile and such mobility creates frequent,
dynamic changes to the network topology. Col. 2, ll. 19-29. To effectively
route messages through such dynamically changing networks, routers need
to remain informed of topology and link-state changes. Col. 3, ll. 30-32.
An objective of Ogier is to enable seamless movement by mobile
nodes from network to network. Col. 3, ll. 7-8.
Figure 1 of Ogier shows subnets 10, 20 that are components of a
network of networks (i.e., "the Internet"). Col. 5, ll. 31-34. Each subnet
includes IP hosts 12, routers 14, and a gateway 14 (collectively referred to as
nodes 18). Col. 5, ll. 58-66. Each node 18 can establish connectivity with
one or more other nodes 18 through broadcast or point-to-point links.
Col. 6, ll. 41-46. As nodes move, they may break communication with
nodes and establish communication with other nodes either in the same
subnet or in a different subnet. Col. 7, ll. 13-53.
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

10
Each router 14 in a subnet is responsible for detecting, updating, and
reporting changes in cost or up-or-down status of each outgoing
communication link to neighbor nodes. Each router executes a neighbor
discovery protocol for detecting the arrival of new neighbor nodes and the
loss of existing neighbor nodes. Col. 7, l. 54 to col. 8, l. 4. The nodes that
detect a change in a link send a message to its neighbors informing the
neighbor of the update to that link. Each router 4 receiving the update may
subsequently forward the update to one or more neighboring nodes until the
change in the topology of the subnet disseminates to the appropriate routers
in the subnet. Col. 8, ll. 5-18.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner concedes that Yip does not teach a designated network
router which determines a current network topology (FOA 3, 4, and 9). This
is the reason for applying Ogier in the obviousness rejection. However, in
response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner appears to imply that Yip
determines a network topology because "[t]he Examiner interprets
'calculating the topology for the entire network' as sending ping messages to
all the routers on the network to determine if any of the routers have failed"
(Ans. 15) and finds that Yip "discloses a master router that is able to ping
other routers that are currently alive according to their tracking parameters"
(id.) and "[o]nce the new master router is elected, the new master router
knows the current configuration of network based on the location of the
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

11
other routers that are currently available based on their configuration table
(abstract, col. 4, lines 59-67 and col. 5, lines 1-8)" (id.).
We disagree with the Examiner's interpretation that "calculating the
topology of the network" merely requires sending ping messages to all the
routers on the network to determine if any of the routers have failed. The
topology of the network is a mapping that establishes the neighbor
relationships among all the routers currently on-line. Spec. 6, ll. 14-16. Yip
determines a priority value for electing a new master router by, among other
criteria, pinging active routes listed in the routing table for each of the
routers in the virtual router network. Abstract. The number of live routes is
quantified in a metric that reflects a priority field value. Col. 2, ll. 19-21;
col. 5, ll. 18-20. The number of live routes does not determine the topology
or connections between nodes, much less between the entire network. While
the new master router sends a new subnet route for the hosts to other routers
on the network (col. 5, ll. 2-6), this is a subnet route and not the topology of
the network. Thus, Yip does not teach a designated network router which
determines and communicates a current network topology.
Ogier also does not teach a designated network router which
determines a current network topology. The portions of Ogier cited by the
Examiner teach that routers detect a change in connection to neighboring
nodes. These changes are forwarded until the change in topology is
disseminated to the appropriate routers in the subnet. We assume that
determining the topology of a subnet satisfies the determining the topology
of a network. However, there is no teaching or conception of a designated
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

12
router that determines a current network topology. Therefore, we find that
neither Yip nor Ogier teaches or suggests a designated network router which
determines and communicates a current network topology. Accordingly, the
combination of Yip and Ogier does not teach all of the claim limitations.

CONCLUSION
The combination of Yip and Ogier does not describe or suggest a
designated network router which determines a current network topology.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-21.

NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
nonstatutory subject matter.
The Specification describes that the "signal-bearing medium" in
claim 18 includes "transmission media such as digital and analog
communication links and wireless." Spec. 16, ll. 12-13.
"If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory
categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even
if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful." In re Nuijten,
500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "A transitory, propagating signal . . .
is not a 'process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter' [under
35 U.S.C. § 101]" and therefore does not constitute patentable subject matter
under § 101. Id. at 1357. Claims that are so broad that they read on
nonstatutory as well as statutory subject matter are unpatentable.
Accordingly, claims 18-20 are not patent eligible subject matter.
Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

13
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
A new ground of rejection is entered as to claims 18-20.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in
which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . .

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .

Requests for extensions of time are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(b).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

REVERSED -- 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

Appeal 2009-002279
Application 10/176,044

14
erc

MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817