Ex Parte Bozionek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2013

10574170 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013)

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.
10/574,170 01/10/2007 Bruno Bozionek 2003P13552WOUS 4107
22116 7590 09/25/2013
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
MAI, KEVIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2013 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 BRUNO BOZIONEK, DIETER HEMKEMEYER,
KARL KLAGHOFER, RALF NEUHAUS, MICHAEL TIETSCH,
RAINER UECKER, and RAINER ZIMMERMANN

__________

Appeal 2011-006636
Application 10/574,170
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006636
Application 10/574,170

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 24-29, 31-34, 44-52, and 54. Claims 1-23, 30, 35-43, and 53 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
An oral hearing was held on September 10, 2013. The record includes
a written transcript of the oral hearing.
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for transmitting on-demand
software or data from a server to a terminal in a packet network. A
bandwidth test is performed as a prerequisite for transmission, to verify
whether the currently available bandwidth is sufficient for transmitting the
requested software or data. The server does not transmit the requested
software or data if the results of the bandwidth test are negative. (Abstract.)
Claims 24 and 54 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
24. A method for substantially real time transmission
of a software component after receiving a demand for the
software component from a requesting terminal of a network
comprised of a server and a plurality of terminals, the
requesting terminal being a terminal of the plurality of
terminals, the method comprising:
triggering a bandwidth test, the bandwidth test
comprising sending a bandwidth request to each terminal,
registering a bandwidth of an associated part connection after
each hop and receiving assembled data relating to bandwidth
available for each terminal;
prior to initiating transmission of the software
component, determining via the bandwidth test if a present
bandwidth is sufficient for transmission of the demanded
software component to the requesting terminal by identifying at
least one lower priority process currently using bandwidth of
Appeal 2011-006636
Application 10/574,170

3
the existing network that each has a lower priority than the
demand and computing an amount of available bandwidth
resources that is obtainable from reducing bandwidth resources
assigned to the at least one lower priority process,
if the computed amount of available bandwidth resources
is equal to or greater than an amount of bandwidth necessary to
transmit the software component to the requesting terminal,
reducing or freezing the at least one lower priority processes
and transmitting the software component to the requesting
terminal; and
if the computed amount of available bandwidth resources
is less than the amount of bandwidth necessary to transmit the
software component to the requesting terminal, inhibiting or
rejecting transmission of the software component.

54. A method for substantially real time transmission
of a software component after receiving a demand for the
software component from a requesting terminal of a network
comprised of a server and a plurality of terminals, the
requesting terminal being a terminal of the plurality of
terminals, the method comprising:
triggering a bandwidth test;
prior to initiating transmission of the software
component, determining via the bandwidth test if a present
bandwidth is sufficient for transmission of the software
component to the requesting terminal by identifying at least one
lower priority process currently using bandwidth of the existing
network that each has a lower priority than the demand and
computing an amount of available bandwidth resources that is
obtainable from reducing bandwidth resources assigned to the
at least one lower priority process,
if the computed amount of available bandwidth resources
is equal to or greater than an amount of bandwidth necessary to
transmit the software component to the requesting terminal,
reducing the at least one lower priority process such that the at
least one lower priority process is still able to utilize some
bandwidth, and transmitting the software component to the
requesting terminal; and
Appeal 2011-006636
Application 10/574,170

4
if the computed amount of available bandwidth resources
is less than the amount of bandwidth necessary to transmit the
software component to the requesting terminal, inhibiting or
rejecting transmission of the software component.

Claims 24-29, 31, 32, 44-51, and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Albuquerque (U.S.
Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0158644 A1; Aug. 12, 2004).
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Albuquerque and Gillett (U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2003/0097443 A1; May 22, 2003).
Claim 52 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Albuquerque and Krishnan (U.S. Patent No.
6,222,856 B1; Apr. 24, 2001).

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 13; see also
Reply Br. 3-4) that Albuquerque would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 24, which includes the limitation “triggering a bandwidth
test, the bandwidth test comprising . . . registering a bandwidth of an
associated part connection after each hop.”
The Examiner found that the admission control (AC) system of
Albuquerque, which controls links by determining link speed, corresponds to
the limitation “triggering a bandwidth test, the bandwidth test
comprising . . . registering a bandwidth of an associated part connection after
each hop.” (Ans. 23.) In particular, the Examiner found that because “all
Appeal 2011-006636
Application 10/574,170

5
connection are determined then all connections after each hop are
registered.” (Ans. 23.) We do not agree.
Albuquerque relates to “the optimization of throughput through
distributed resource allocation for shared medium communication.”
(¶ [0002].) Figure 2 of Albuquerque illustrates a distributed communication
network 150 that includes an access point (AP) 152, distributed
terminals 154A-G, and a distributed admission control (AC) system 160.
(¶ [0024].) Albuquerque explains that “[t]he AC system 160 allocates
network resources for traffic flows, including providing communication
control over the links 156 by . . . accepting and denying new flows,
reserving bandwidth . . . and determining link speed.” (¶ [0032].)
Albuquerque further explains that “[t]he [bandwidth manager] BM monitors
the available bandwidth in the network 150 and reserves bit rate bandwidths
for flows” and that “[t]he [flow registration units] FRs accept or deny the
admission of new flows into the network 150.” (¶ [0033].)
Although the Examiner cited the AC system 160 of Albuquerque, the
Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that
Albuquerque teaches the limitation “registering a bandwidth of an associated
part connection after each hop,” particularly when Albuquerque explains
that communication control over the links 156 is optimized by “denying new
flows, reserving bandwidth . . . and determining link speed” (¶ [0032]).
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “[t]here is no
bandwidth of part connections being registered after each hop in a particular
connection path taught or suggested by the cited art” (Reply Br. 3) because
“Albuquerque et al. requires the terminals, or flow registration units FRs to
Appeal 2011-006636
Application 10/574,170

6
communicate an experienced flow rate to the bandwidth manager” (Reply
Br. 4).
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that Albuquerque would
have rendered obvious independent claim 24, which includes the limitation
“triggering a bandwidth test, the bandwidth test comprising . . . registering a
bandwidth of an associated part connection after each hop.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 25-29, 31, 32, and 44-47 depend from
independent claim 24. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 25-29, 31,
32, and 44-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with
respect to independent claim 24.
Independent claim 48 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 24. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 48, as well as dependent claims 49-51, for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 48.
Claims 33 and 34 depend from independent claims 24. Gillett was
cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 33 and
34. (Ans. 17-18.) However, the Examiner’s application of Gillett does not
cure the above noted deficiencies of Albuquerque. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 33 and 34.
Claim 52 depends from independent claims 48. Krishnan was cited
by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 52. (Ans. 19.)
However, the Examiner’s application of Krishnan does not cure the above
noted deficiencies of Albuquerque. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 52.

Appeal 2011-006636
Application 10/574,170

7
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 14-15; see
also Reply Br. 5-6) that Albuquerque would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 54, which includes the limitation “reducing the at least
one lower priority process such that the at least one lower priority process is
still able to utilize some bandwidth.”
The Examiner found that Figure 5 of Albuquerque, which illustrates a
flowchart that determines if a bandwidth request can be satisfied and
reserving bandwidth, and temporarily halting the bandwidth for a low
priority flow, corresponds to the limitation “reducing the at least one lower
priority process such that the at least one lower priority process is still able
to utilize some bandwidth.” (Ans. 16, 24; Albuquerque, fig. 5; ¶ [0044].)
We agree with the Examiner.
Albuquerque explains that “flows having bandwidths reserved may be
temporarily halted . . . and loose [sic] their reserved bandwidths for one or
more frames to accommodate flows having higher priorities.” (¶ [0044].)
Albuquerque further explains that “the BM releases the reserved bandwidth
allocated to the lowest priority flow, updates the reservation table, updates
the available time in the frame, and recalculates the available packets in the
frame.” (¶ [0046]; see also fig. 5.) Thus, for a time period associated with
multiple frames, the data transmission of Albuquerque resumes, and,
accordingly, Albuquerque teaches the limitation “reducing the at least one
lower priority process such that the at least one lower priority process is still
able to utilize some bandwidth.”
Appellants argue that “Albuquerque et al. teach that any lower priority
process be eliminated or rejected in the event a higher priority process
requires all the bandwidth being used by that or reserved for that process to
Appeal 2011-006636
Application 10/574,170

8
be released.” (App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 5-6.) However, as discussed
previously, Albuquerque explains that “flows having bandwidths reserved
may be temporarily halted . . . and loose [sic] their reserved bandwidths for
one or more frames” (¶ [0044]) and after the passage of multiple frames, the
data transmission of Albuquerque resumes. Claim 54 does not expressly
recite a time period in which the “one lower priority process is still able to
utilize some bandwidth.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Albuquerque would have
rendered obvious independent claim 54, which includes the limitation
“reducing the at least one lower priority process such that the at least one
lower priority process is still able to utilize some bandwidth.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 54 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 54 is affirmed. However, the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 24-29, 31-34, and 44-52 is reversed.
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-IN-PART

ke