Ex Parte Cheung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

12594800 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/594,800 03/04/2010 Gene Cheung
56436 7590 08/25/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82226051 6737
EXAMINER
MIAH,RAZUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GENE CHEUNG and TAKASHI SAKAMOTO
Appeal2015-001808
Application 12/594,800
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, AMBER L. HAGY, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 8-11, and 13-15. 1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 The Examiner has indicated claims 2, 4--7, and 12 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form. (Final Act. 8.) Those claims are not before us.
Appeal2015-001808
Application 12/594,800
Introduction
According to Appellants, "[ t ]he present invention relates to a data
transmission system in which transmission data generated periodically is
transmitted and a method therefor." (Spec. i-f 1.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A data transmission system for transmitting transmission
data generated in each of predetermined cycles and prediction
data for predicting transmission data in a cycle subsequent
thereto based on one or more items of the transmission data from
a transmission device to a reception device via a network, the
network causing a delay and a loss with respect to the
transmission data,
wherein the transmission device is to:
generate the transmission data;
generate the prediction data for predicting
transmission data in the cycle subsequent to the
predetermined cycles;
transmit the generated transmission data; and
transmit the generated prediction data by using a
bandwidth of a difference between a bandwidth allocated
on the network and a bandwidth of the transmission data.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Febvre et al. US 2005/0026621 Al
Mcintire et al. US 2007/0250901 A 1
Ansari et al. US 7 ,808,913 B2
2
Feb.3,2005
Oct. 25, 2007
Oct. 5, 2010
Appeal2015-001808
Application 12/594,800
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10-11, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ansari and Febvre. (Final Act. 2-6.)
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ansari, Febvre, and Mcintire. (Final Act. 6-7.)
ISSUE
Whether the Examiner erred in finding Febvre teaches or suggests the
limitation of "transmit the generated prediction data by using a bandwidth
of a difference between a bandwidth allocated on the network and a
bandwidth of the transmission data," as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited in independent claims 10 and 11.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Ansari teaches the limitations of claim 1, except
the Examiner finds "Ansari does not explicitly disclose transmit the
generated prediction data by using a bandwidth of a difference between a
bandwidth allocated on the network and a bandwidth of the transmission
data." (Final Act. 3.) As to that limitation, the Examiner relies on Febvre.
(Id. 3--4 (citing Febvre i-fi-19-10, 38-39).)
Appellants argue the Examiner's findings are in error because:
(1) "Febvre does not teach or suggest that the return bandwidth, or any
bandwidth, is a difference between the bandwidth allocated on the network
and the bandwidth of the forward traffic"; and (2) although Febvre "predicts
the bandwidth requirements in order to assign a return bandwidth to the
3
Appeal2015-001808
Application 12/594,800
mobile device, ... Febvre does not transmit the prediction data over the
assigned bandwidth." (App. Br. 9-10 (emphases added).)
As to the first contention, Appellants argue:
Febvre generally discusses a network for allocating a return
bandwidth to a mobile device, wherein the network analyzes the
forward traffic received by the mobile device and predicts the
return-bandwidth requirements which are likely to result from
the forward traffic. The network of Febvre then assigns a return
bandwidth to the mobile device in one of the associated return
channels.
As such, Febvre predicts the bandwidth requirements for
the mobile device to transmit the return traffic and then assigns
a return bandwidth to the mobile device. In other words, the
network of F ebvre appears to predict an amount of bandwidth
that the mobile device may need to transmit the return traffic.
However, the return bandwidth of Febvre is not a difference
between a bandwidth allocated on the network and a bandwidth
of the forward traffic (transmission data).
(App. Br. 9 (emphases added).)
The Examiner responds by stating:
Febvre teaches "predicts the bandwidth requirements for the
mobile device to transmit the return traffic and then assigns a
return bandwidth to the mobile device", [and] based on this
teaching of Febvre[,] it is clearly understandable by one of
ordinary skill in the art to realize that when assigning a particular
portion/limit of bandwidth for a particular service the system
would need to first calculate the available network bandwidth
and current transmission requirement before assigning/reserving
the particular bandwidth for the service.
(Ans. 4.)
We agree with Appellants the Examiner has not demonstrated that
these findings are supported by the teachings or suggestions of Febvre. The
cited portions of Febvre describe "allocating return bandwidth to mobiles in
a network, in which the network analyzes the forward traffic to individual
4
Appeal2015-001808
Application 12/594,800
mobiles and predicts the return bandwidth requirements which are likely to
result from the return traffic." (Febvre i-f 9.) As Appellants argue, and we
agree, the Examiner has not pointed to a disclosure in Febvre that teaches or
suggests that the return bandwidth is a "difference between a bandwidth
allocated on the network and a bandwidth of the transmission data." (App.
Br. 9; Reply Br. 6.) Although we agree with the Examiner that "assigning a
particular portion/limit of bandwidth for a particular service" logically
requires "calculat[ing] the available network bandwidth and current
transmission requirement before assigning/reserving the particular
bandwidth for the service" (Ans. 4), this does not necessarily mean the
bandwidth will be the "difference between a bandwidth allocated on the
network and a bandwidth of the transmission data," as recited in claim 1.
This raises Appellants' second contention-which is that, even if the
return bandwidth calculated by F ebvre were the difference between the
overall network bandwidth and the forward bandwidth, the Examiner has not
demonstrated that Febvre teaches or suggests transmitting "prediction data"
using the return bandwidth. (App. Br. 10.) Rather, as Appellants argue, and
we agree, the return traffic transmitted by Febvre over the return bandwidth
"appears to be regular data, and not 'prediction' data. Thus, the mobile
device of Febvre does not transmit any 'prediction' data over the assigned
bandwidth." (Id.) The Examiner's Answer is silent on this point.
In short, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding Febvre
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of independent claim 1, which is
commensurately recited in independent claims 10 and 11. We, therefore, do
not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 10, and
11, or the claims dependent thereon.
5
Appeal2015-001808
Application 12/594,800
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claims 1, 3, 8-11, and 13-15 are reversed.
REVERSED
6