Ex Parte Chong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2013

10434656 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte HUAI-TER VICTOR CHONG,
and RICHARD W. ADKISSON
________________

Appeal 2010-012259
Application 10/434,656
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-012259
Application 10/434,656

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-24. Claim 5 has been canceled. App. Br. 5.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention is directed to a system and a method for combining a
slow data stream with one or more fast data streams into a single fast data
stream. See Abstract.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A method for combining a first data stream with at least
one faster data stream into a single data stream, comprising the
steps of:
[1] processing queued transactions of the faster data
stream into the single data stream;
[2] determining when there are no queued transactions of
the faster data stream;
[3] determining existence of a transaction from the first
data stream;
[4] if the transaction has data packets, inserting the
transaction into the single data stream when there are no queued
transactions; and
[5] if the transaction has no data packets, inserting the
transaction into the single data stream;
[6] reformatting the transaction into a format of the single
data stream
Appeal 2010-012259
Application 10/434,656

3
[7] wherein the single data stream is faster than the first
data stream.
Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 and 6-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Rahman (U.S. 6,871,011 B1, Mar. 22, 2005),
Haddock (U.S. 6,678,248 B1, Jan. 13, 2004), Mirashrafi (U.S. 5,574,934,
Nov. 12, 1996), and Sayers (U.S. 7,042,394 B2, May 9, 2006). Ans. 3-9.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. Appellants contend that “Sayers is not related art because Sayers is
directed towards directing an antenna for proper transmission to fixed
or mobile receiving units while the instant application is directed
towards combining data streams. A person having ordinary skill in the
art would not look to art controlling antenna direction to combine data
streams.” App. Br. 13.
2. Appellants also contend that “the cited language [in Sayers] does not
teach or suggest that the presence or absence of data packets has any
effect on behavior of when or which information is inserted into the
stream because, according to the cited language, either control
information will always be inserted into the data stream or there is no
criteria by which control information is selected to be inserted into the
data stream.” Id.
3. Appellants contend that “Haddock does not teach or suggest that the
merged queue is faster than the multiple traffic groups because the
consolidation rules teach away from merging groups with different
relative priorities.” Id. at 14.
Appeal 2010-012259
Application 10/434,656

4
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS1
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs (App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br.
1-6), the principal and dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in
rejecting exemplary claim 1 turns on whether the combination of Rahman,
Haddock, Mirashrafi, and Sayers teaches or suggests (a) limitation [5] of
claim 1 (“if the transaction has no data packets, inserting the transaction into
the single data stream”) and (b) limitation [7] of claim 1 (“wherein the single
data stream is faster than the first data stream”).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
Appellants did not challenge the Examiner’s factual findings about
Mirashrafi on pages 4-5 and 10 of the Answer. We will take those findings
as conceded by Appellants.
In rejecting independent claim 1 over the combination of Rahman,
Haddock, Mirashrafi, and Sayers the Examiner finds (Ans. 3-5) that Rahman

1 According to Appellants, claims 13 and 24 recite features similar to claim
1 (App. Br. 11-13). Therefore, we treat claim 1 as representative for
purposes of this appeal. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-4,
6-12 and 14-23. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 2-4 and 6-24 are
not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2010-012259
Application 10/434,656

5
discloses all the claimed features, except for limitation [5] of claim 1 (“if the
transaction has no data packets”) (hereinafter, “the no data packets
limitation”), and limitation [7] of claim 1 (“single data stream is faster than
the first data stream”) (hereinafter, “the faster stream limitation”). The
Examiner relies on Sayers for disclosing or suggesting the no data packets
limitation missing in Rahman and Mirashrafi, and Haddock for disclosing or
suggesting the faster stream limitation missing in Rahman and Mirashrafi
(Ans. 4, 5).
As to contention 1, that Sayers is “not related art” (App. Br. 13), the
Examiner correctly points out that Rahman, Mirashrafi, Haddock, and
Sayers all relate to improvements in network services (Ans. 11). Appellants
have not presented any specific reason in their arguments that these
references are not related art.
As to contention 2, with regard to the “no data packets” feature,
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive as our interpretation of the
disclosure of Sayers coincides with that of the Examiner. In particular, we
agree with the Examiner that Sayers teaches that “control packets [that] are
smallest, have the highest priority, and are sent separately from data
packets,” i.e., control packets are treated differently from data packets. Ans.
5, 10 (citing Sayers, col. 16, ll. 27-33). We also agree with the Examiner
that Sayers’s teaching of “the separation of data packets and non-data
packets to reduce redundant use of network resources” to increase efficiency
meets the claimed feature of “no data packets.” Ans. 11.
As such, the Examiner finds that Sayers meets the claimed “no data
packets” feature, and we concur with the Examiner.
Appeal 2010-012259
Application 10/434,656

6
As to contention 3, with regard to the “faster stream” feature, we
agree with the Examiner’s analysis (Ans. 11-12) in response to Appellants’
arguments. The Examiner finds that Haddock discloses “merging multiple
groups with varying quality of service and bandwidth requirements into a
single queue.” Ans. 4 (citing Haddock, col. 6 ll. 15-20, col. 8 line 65 - col. 9
line 5). Haddock explicitly discloses using the largest of maximum
attributes to arrive at an appropriate value for a maximum attribute for the
target QoS (quality of service) queue. Haddock, col. 9, ll. 16-18 (hereinafter
“second option”). As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 12), the second
option ensures that the merged stream will satisfy the minimum speed
requirements of the strictest traffic queue being incorporated into the merged
stream which changes the minimum speed requirements for the packets from
the slowest queue and results in a faster stream for the packets from the
queue with the lower QoS requirements. Id. In other words, the second
option describes using the maximum QoS requirements of all traffic groups
being merged together as the maximum QoS requirement of the merged
queue. Thus, the merged stream in the second option of Haddock
corresponds to the “faster stream” feature, as recited in claim 1.
Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1-4 and 6-24.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rahman, Haddock, Mirashrafi,
and Sayers.

Appeal 2010-012259
Application 10/434,656

7
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4 and 6-24.
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

msc