Ex Parte Carter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2013

10285271 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte STEPHEN R. CARTER,
JUAN CARLOS LUCIANI, VERNON ROGER HOLM,
JAMSHID MAHDAVI, and FELIX SUN-TSYR WU
____________________

Appeal 2013-005480
Application 10/285,271
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-005480
Application 10/285,271

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 8-11, 13 and 14. Claims 1-7 and 12 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is generally related to:
techniques for enriching a distribution tree of a content
distribution network are described. The enriched tree
represents a map that includes planned paths to move data
through the content distribution network and one or more
alternative paths to reroute the data should a failure occur with
one or more links and/or nodes of the content distribution
network. The enriched tree or augmented tree can be viewed as
a directed graph (can be cyclic) having the one or more
alternative paths accessible within the enriched tree.
(Spec. 3-4.)
Independent claim 8, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
8. A computer-implemented method to enrich a tree
for a content distribution network to execute on a computer,
comprising:

requesting, by the computer, the tree for the content
distribution network;

receiving, by the computer, the tree;

receiving, by the computer, a customized level of
enrichment to perform on the tree, and identified by an

1 In a prior decision of this application, decided October 17, 2008 (Appeal
No. 2008-1343), a panel of this Board affirmed the rejection of claims 1-20
over the applied prior art of record.
Appeal 2013-005480
Application 10/285,271

3
administrator, the level indicates all determinable alternative
paths that can be generated from the tree and the enrichment
produces alternative paths;

generating, by the computer, the alternative paths using
the tree;

associating, by the computer, the alternative paths with
the tree before data is transferred over the content distribution
network using the tree and the alternative paths to form an
enriched tree that is represented as a routing table and provided
with data before the data is routed through the content
distribution network, the routing table having the alternative
paths; and

presenting, by the computer, a visual presentation of the
tree together with an entire topology of the content distribution
network, the content distribution network having trees other
than said tree, the visual presentation made to an administrator
to permit the administrator to visualize characteristics and costs
for nodes, links, planned paths, and trees of the content
distribution network so the administrator can create a job to
move content from an ingress node to an egress node of the
content distribution network.

REFERENCES
Haas US 7,035,937 B2 Apr. 25, 2006
(Filed Apr. 11, 2002)
Mangan US 7,069,336 B2 June 27, 2006
(Filed Feb. 1, 2002)
Mao US 7,168,044 B1 Jan. 23, 2007
(Filed Dec. 22, 2000)
Leon-Garcia & Indra Widjaja, Communication Networks: Fundamental
Concepts and Key Architectures, 490-499, published by the McGraw-Hill
Companies (2000) (hereinafter "Widjaja").

Appeal 2013-005480
Application 10/285,271

4
REJECTIONS
Claims 8-11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Haas, Mao, and Widjaja.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Haas, Mao, Widjaja, and Mangan.

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner's rejection has failed to consider the
claimed subject matter as a whole and has failed to satisfy the Office’s
burden. (Reply Br. 2). Appellants contend the Examiner's statement "to
determine the best path, the routing algorithm must determine all paths
before a determination can be made as to which is considered to be the best"
relying upon the Mao reference does not teach the claimed limitation "all
determinable alternative paths through the network." (Id. at 3). Appellants
contend that "[a]ll paths need not be determined to determine which is the
best, a 'best' path may be based upon many different characteristics and
unrelated factors." (Id.). Appellants contend columns 3 and 6 of the Mao
reference teach the best path through the network is determined by
individual nodes. (Id. at 3-4).
While we agree with Appellants, we find each node must evaluate all
pathways to determine the "best." Additionally, the Mao reference teaches:
through the network management system 220 a network control
station operator can view: 1) the location and capacity of each
node (e.g., nodes 201 through 209); 2) the location and capacity
of each link (e.g., links 211 through 225); and 3) the
connections provisioned into the network.

Appeal 2013-005480
Application 10/285,271

5
(Mao, col. 3, ll. 19-24). (Emphases added). We agree with the
Examiner and find when each node and each link are identified, all of
the parts of all the paths are included, which is clear evidence the Mao
reference teaches and fairly suggests all of the data is available for use
and viewing in determining the best path. (Ans. 11).
Appellants also contend the claimed invention recites "a visual
representation of a tree together with the entire topology of the
content distribution network . . . to permit the administrator to
visualize characteristics and costs for nodes, links, planned paths, and
trees of the content distribution network . . ." (App. Br. 9; Reply Br.
6). The Examiner maintains the routing algorithm (Dijskras
algorithm) requires input from a user/administrator for cost functions,
source, and receivers. Therefore, the user/administrator participates in
the path determination process. (Ans. 12). We agree with the
Examiner and further find the visual display of the Mao reference at
column 3 evidences presentation to an administrator/user.
Additionally, we note Mao states:
the process of connection provisioning is traditionally a manual
process. That is, for example, a network control station
operator manually informs the network control system 230
(through the network management system 220) of the routing
path that a connection is to possess as well as the resources that
are to be allocated for the connection.

(Mao, col. 3, l. 63 - col. 4, l. 2). The Mao reference states that "In the
centralized automatic networking provision approach of FIG. 2,
however, characteristics of a new connection are presented to the
network management system 220 by the network control station
operator." (Mao, col. 4, ll. 4-9). The Mao reference further states that
Appeal 2013-005480
Application 10/285,271

6
"The network control station operator, by pointing and clicking at a
source and a destination can automatically generate the
source/destination pair characteristics of the connection." (Mao, col.
4, ll. 25-28). The Mao reference additionally states that:
FIG. 4 shows a methodology that describes the operation
of the centralized and distributed automatic provisioning
approaches discussed above. A source and destination node are
selected 401 (e.g., by pointing and clicking) from a network
topology presented to a network control station operator by a
graphical user interface.

(Mao, col. 6, ll. 34-40). Clearly, the above descriptions teach and
fairly suggest both an automated routing algorithm and also operator
interface and selectability by the operator. Therefore, we find
Appellants' argument do not show error in the Examiner's conclusion
of obviousness.
Appellants further maintain that:
The claimed invention, on the other hand, visually presents to
an administrator the various alternative paths with the
characteristics and costs of each so that the administrator can
select a path to move content through the network. With the
invention, an administrator can use the characteristics and costs
along with empirical knowledge to select alternate paths to
enrich a tree for content distribution. With Haas and Mao, an
administrator cannot do so. An algorithm determines a path.
(App. Br. 10). We disagree with Appellants and find the visual
interface allows the operator to visualize characteristics and costs and
allows the operator to create a job to move content from an ingress
node to an egress node of the content distribution number. Therefore,
Appellants' argument does not show error in the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 8.
Appeal 2013-005480
Application 10/285,271

7
With respect to dependent claims 9-11, 13, and 14, Appellants
present general arguments for patentability which do not show error in
the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. (App. Br. 9-10).
Therefore, we will sustain the rejections of claims 9-11, 13, and 14.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8-11 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the applied prior art of record.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the applied prior art of record.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-11, 13, and 14 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

llw