Ex Parte CHEN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2019

14824119 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/824,119 08/12/2015 YINGWEI CHEN
24737 7590 02/01/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2004 P02668USO 1 3956
EXAMINER
JAGANNATHAN, MELANIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YINGWEI CHEN, RICHARD CHEN,
REUDIGER SCHMITT, and
SAI SHANKAR NANDAGOP ALAN 1
Appeal2018-006506
Application 14/824, 119
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1--4. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. is the real
party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 The Examiner indicates claim 5 contains allowable subject matter (Ans.
6), and thus claim 5 is not among the rejected claims before us on appeal.
Appeal2018-006506
Application 14/824, 119
Disclosed Invention
Appellant's disclosed invention relates to packet scheduling in a QoS
( quality of service) network architecture. Spec. 2: 15-2: 19. In a preferred
embodiment, delay-sensitive traffic (video, voice, audio) and non-delay-
sensitive traffic are assigned to separate queues. Spec. 3 :22-3 :26. The
queues are weighted and packets are scheduled for transmission based on the
respective queue weights, where the weights are dynamically adjustable.
Spec. 3:15-3:21, 3:28--4:4.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a memory configured to comprise more than one weighted
queue;
a scheduler configured to receive a flow and distribute at
least one packet of the received flow to at least one weighted
queue of the more than one weighted queues, the scheduler
configured to distribute the at least one packet of the received
flow to the at least one weighted queue based on a delay
sensitivity of the received flow; and
a monitor configured to track at least a per-byte
transmission time of at least one of the more than one weighted
queues and adjust a weight of at least one weighted queue when
the per-byte transmission time of the at least one weighted queue
exceeds a threshold.
App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-006506
Application 14/824, 119
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 6,990,113 B 1; iss. Jan. 24, 2006,
hereinafter "Wang") and Lakkakorpi (US 2004/0153564 Al; pub. Aug. 5,
2004).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant contends Lakkakorpi fails to teach the claim 1 limitation of
"track[ing] at least a per-byte transmission time of at least one of the more
than one weighted queues and adjust[ing] a weight of at least one weighted
queue when the per-byte transmission time of the at least one weighted
queue exceeds a threshold." App. Br. 17, (Claims Appendix). Appellant
also contends it would not have been obvious to modify Wang in view of
Lakkakorpi to adjust a queue weight based on a per-byte transmission time.
App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Lakkakorpi describes a packet scheduling architecture for output
queues in an IP router. Lakkakorpi ,r 32. Network traffic is classified based
on packet headers and placed in one of several queues, and the order of
removal of packets from the queues is determined based on the respective
weights allocated to the queues. Lakkakorpi ,r,r 33-34. The weights of the
queues can be adjusted at predetermined intervals, for example, as a function
of a "moving average of traffic characteristics ( e.g. byte count, flow count
etc.) at queue Ci within the measurement period T." Lakkakorpi ,r,r 3 6-3 7.
Appellant argues "Lakkakorpi describes a moving average of traffic
characteristics as byte count or flow count, but not per-byte transmission
3
Appeal2018-006506
Application 14/824, 119
time." App. Br. 10-11; see also Reply Br. 6. Appellant's Specification,
however, includes discussion of "a time monitor module 104 that computes
window-averaged transmit time per byte, tracks increases in this average
time, adjusts each of the weights." Spec. 4:9--4: 11 ( emphasis added). Thus,
in light of the Specification, we interpret claim 1 as encompassing a "per-
byte transmission time" that is an average time. We agree with the
Examiner (see Ans. 10-11) and find that Lakkakorpi's "moving average of
traffic characteristics (e.g. byte count, flow count etc.) at queue Ci within the
measurement period T" (Lakkakorpi ,r,r 36-37) at least suggests such an
average per-byte transmission time. 3
Further, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
combination of Lakkakorpi with Wang. The Examiner proposes using
Lakkakorpi's moving average of byte count over a period of time as a factor
for adjusting queue weights in Wang. See Final Act. 4--5; see also Ans. 10-
11. Appellant argues the "per-byte transmission time" recited in claim 1
"cannot be separated and examined in [a] vacuum from the rest of the
limitation associated with that feature." App. Br. 8. Rather, "the entire
limitation of 'a monitor configured to track at least a per-byte
transmission time of at least one of the more than one weighted queues
and adjust a weight of at least one weighted queue when the per-byte
transmission time of the at least one weighted queue exceeds a
3 We note that in the Reply Brief Appellant argues "Wang fails to discuss
the feature 'a monitor configured to track at least a transmission time of at
least one of the more than one weighted queues' recited in claim 1." Reply
Br. 4. However, the Examiner relies on Lakkakorpi for the claim 1 feature
of tracking "per-byte transmission time." Ans. 10-11; see also Final Act. 4--
5.
4
Appeal2018-006506
Application 14/824, 119
threshold' as recited in claim 1 must be considered in its entirety, and not in
a piecemeal fashion." App. Br. 8. Appellant's argument, however,
misunderstands the nature of the obviousness inquiry. "The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007). Accordingly, there is nothing improper
about the Examiner concluding that Lakkakorpi teaches an aspect of the
disputed limitation, while concluding that Wang teaches the remainder of the
limitation. Rather, it is incumbent upon the Office to determine whether an
application "claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered
by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field." Id.
Appellant has not provided a persuasive reason why the Examiner's
combination of Wang and Lakkakorpi would not have been obvious.
Rather, the fact that Wang uses average queue length as a factor in adjusting
queue weights, where queue length is related to delay (see Wang, col. 5, 1.
15---col. 6, 1. 51 ), suggests the substitution of another known time-related
factor, such as Lakkakorpi' s moving average of byte count over a period of
time. See Lakkakorpi, ,r,r 36-37. Moreover, Appellant has not specifically
explained why the Examiner's stated motivation for combining Lakkakorpi
with Wang-"to improve the predictability of queuing delays" (Final Act.
5}-is insufficient. Although Appellant argues "there is no mention in
Lakkakorpi regarding 'the determination of a traffic characteristic is for the
purpose of improving queuing delays"' (Reply Br. 5), Lakkakorpi is in fact
devoted to describing a queue weighting function based on traffic
characteristics, for example, byte count over a period of time, such that
5
Appeal2018-006506
Application 14/824, 119
"scheduling can be adapted to changes in the traffic mix to achieve more
predictable maximum delays." Lakkakorpi, ,r,r 3 6, 3 7, and 46.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1.
Claim 2
Appellant contends Wang fails to teach the claim 2 limitations of
"determin[ing] a delay sensitivity of the received flow; and assign[ing] a
weighted queue to each of the received delay sensitive flow." App. Br. 11-
12. We are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Wang discloses a router where each output buffer includes three
queues-an EF queue for premium service packets, an AF queue for assured
service packets, and a BE queue for best-effort packets. Wang, col. 5, 11. 4--
11. An EF, or expedited forwarding, queue provides "low loss rate, low
delay, low delay jitter and assured throughput." Wang, col. 3, 112-5. In
order to meet the delay requirements of premium service packets, the EF
queue is weighted to provide more bandwidth on the output line of the
router. Wang, col. 5, 1120-32. We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 12-
13) and conclude that the operation of Wang's router that includes an EF
queue teaches the claim 2 limitations of "determin[ing] a delay sensitivity of
the received flow; and assign[ing] a weighted queue to each of the received
delay sensitive flow."
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
2.
Claim 3
Appellant contends Wang fails to teach the claim 3 limitations
"bundle one or more non-delay sensitive flows into a weighted queue" and
6
Appeal2018-006506
Application 14/824, 119
"the received delay sensitive flows are each assigned a predetermined
weighted queue." We are not persuaded of Examiner error.
First, as discussed above regarding claim 2, we conclude Wang
teaches assigning a delay-sensitive flow to a weighted queue. Second, we
conclude Wang also teaches bundling one or more non-delay-sensitive flows
into a weighted queue. Specifically, Wang's router includes a BE (best
effort) queue (Wang, col. 5, 11. 4--11), where "best-effort service is the
default behavior of packet-switched networks" in which routers "may drop
packets indiscriminately in the event of network congestion." Wang, col. 1,
11. 14--18. We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 13-14) and conclude the
operation of Wang's router that includes a BE queue teaches bundling one or
more non-delay-sensitive flows into a weighted queue.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
3.
Claim 4
Appellant contends Wang fails to teach "wherein the scheduler
comprises a selected one of a queuing module, an operating system kernel,
and a device driver," as recited in claim 4. We are not persuaded of
Examiner error.
We note that the language of claim 1 requires only that the
"scheduler" be one of a "queuing module, an operating system kernel, and a
device driver." Appellant has not pointed to an express definition of the
term "queuing module" in the Specification. We conclude that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term "queuing module" is some hardware or
software, or combination of hardware and software, that performs queuing
of packets. We agree with the Examiner (see Final Act. 6) that Wang's
7
Appeal2018-006506
Application 14/824, 119
router meets the claim 4 limitation of a scheduler comprising a queuing
module because it performs queuing of packets. Wang, col. 5, 11. 4--14.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
4.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1--4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8