Ex Parte DeConcilis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12551525 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/551,525 08/31/2009
83579 7590 09/28/2016
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael F. DeConcilis
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.
0079-US-D2 2811
EXAMINER
BELUR,DEEPA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2472
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
patent.docketing@level3.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL F. DECONCILIS 1
Appeal2015-001727
Application 12/551,525
Technology Center 2400
Before: CARLA M. KRIVAK, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies Level 3 Communications, LLC as the real party in
interest. Br. 1-2.
Appeal2015-001727
Application 12/551,525
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-15.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to methods for transmitting and routing
digital information to an end location via multiple carriers. Spec. 1. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of configuring a signal path between a
customer entry point and a termination destination, comprising
the steps of:
a. selecting a carrier that can provide access to said
termination destination;
b. negotiating a rate structure with said selected carrier,
wherein the rate structure is based at least in part on the cost of
access to said termination destination provided by the carrier,
c. determining a routing for a signal path between said
customer entry point and a carrier exit point accessible by said
selected carrier, wherein said signal path passes through at least
one switching device;
d. encoding at least a portion of said routing in machine
readable form, thereby producing machine readable routing
information;
2 Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, and 16-20 were canceled. Br. 2.
2
Appeal2015-001727
Application 12/551,525
e. within a computer program, using said machine
readable routing information to create a plurality of electronic
switching instructions for use with each of said at least one
switching devices;
f. automatically programming each of said at least one
switching devices through which said routing passes according
to at least one of said plurality of switching instructions,
thereby creating said signal path between said customer entry
point and said carrier exit point;
g. updating at least one routing table on each of said at
least one switching devices in said signal path in accordance
with the at least portion of said plurality switch instructions;
h. receiving a voice transmission from a customer via
said customer entry point;
i. transmit a signal representative of said voice
transmission from said customer entry point to said carrier exit
point via said created signal path; and
j. provide said signal representative of said transmitted
voice transmission to said selected carrier at said carrier exit
point for termination at said predetermined termination
destination.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Isidoro
Monga
Schlesener
Croak
Corb
us 5,440,563
US 7,321,932 Bl
US 7,565,448 Bl
US 8, 150,009 B 1
US 2003/0055985 Al
3
Aug. 8, 1995
Jan.22,2008
July 21, 2009
Apr. 3, 2012
Mar. 20, 2003
Appeal2015-001727
Application 12/551,525
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Isidoro, Schlesener,
and Monga. Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Isidoro, Schlesener, Monga, and
Croak. Final Act. 5---6.
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Isidoro, Schlesener, Monga, and Corb.
Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation
primarily for emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art
teaches or suggests steps (a) through (c) and (g) of claim 1. Br. 7-9. We are
not persuaded of error, however, because Appellant does not specifically
address and provide persuasive reasons or evidence indicating error
regarding the specific findings the Examiner made for those steps.
For example, the Examiner finds Isidoro teaches or suggests step (a)
("selecting a carrier that can provide access to [a] termination destination")
by disclosing the selection of a service circuit. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2, 7;
4
Appeal2015-001727
Application 12/551,525
Isidoro 4:5-37, Fig. 3. Appellant does not provide persuasive reasons or
evidence demonstrating why Isidoro's selection of a service circuit would
not teach or suggest selecting the recited carrier. Br. 7. Although Appellant
notes that Isidoro does not use the word "carrier" (id.), a prior art reference
does not have to use claim terms to render obvious a claim. In re Gleave,
560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Similarly, the Examiner finds that the combination of Isidoro and
Schlesener teaches or suggests step ( c) ("determining a routing for a signal
path between said customer entry point and a carrier exit point accessible by
said selected carrier, wherein said signal path passes through at least one
switching device") by Isidoro's switching network with an access switch and
tandem switches, Isidoro's establishing a connection to a service circuit
along a virtual path with two or more switches, and Schlesener's routing a
signal path between a customer entry point and a carrier exit point accessible
by a selected carrier. Ans. 7-8; Isidoro 4:12-23, Fig. 3; Schlesener 5:32---62.
Appellant does not provide any persuasive reasoning or evidence indicating
these combined teachings fail to teach or suggest step ( c ).
Similarly, Appellant provides no persuasive arguments or evidence
regarding the Examiner's specific findings regarding the cited prior art and
steps (b) and (g) other than to state the cited references do not teach these
limitations, without more. Br. 8-9; Ans. 8-9.
Appellant argues the Examiner did not provide sufficient rationales
for combining Isidoro, Schlesener, and Monga. Br. 16-19. Appellant,
however, does not address the specific rationales provided by the Examiner.
For example, Appellant presents no persuasive arguments or evidence
regarding the rationale provided by the Examiner that Schlesener discloses
5
Appeal2015-001727
Application 12/551,525
using routing tables to keep track of details regarding location gateways,
such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to combine
Schlesener's routing table with Isidoro's routing to provide routing details.
Br. 17-19; Ans. 10. Similarly, Appellant does not present any persuasive
arguments or evidence addressing the rationale provided by the Examiner
that Monga discloses the advantages of the dynamic creation of optical
communication paths, discovery physical topology, and end-to-end
connection protection and restoration and, for these reasons, an ordinarily
skilled artisan would combine Monga's teachings, involving negotiation,
with Isidoro's routing. Br. 17-19; Ans. 10-11.
For the reasons discussed above and those provided by the Examiner
in the Answer and the action from which this appeal was taken, we sustain
the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-15.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6