Ex Parte Emmot

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2010

10231606 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAREL N. EMMOT
____________

Appeal 2009-007961
Application 10/231,606
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007961
Application 10/231,606

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 12.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for
communicating an information packet from an originator node to a
destination node. The information packet is split into a plurality of
communicable segments that are mapped onto a plurality of individual links
to the destination node. The plurality of information packets sent over the
individual links are reassembled into a single information packet at the
destination node (Fig. 3; Spec. 4, 6, 9-12; Abstract).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. A computer system having a plurality of nodes interconnected by a
plurality of dedicated communication links, each node comprising:
logic configured to disaggregate an information packet to be
communicated to another node into a plurality of individually-
communicable segments;
logic configured to map the plurality of segments onto at least two of
the plurality of communication links, such that a communication path is
specified between the an [sic] originator node and a destination node for
each of the plurality of segments; and
logic configured to reassemble the plurality of segments separately
received over the plurality of communication links into a single information
packet.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Dretzka US 4,703,475 Oct. 27, 1987
Thorson US 5,659,796 Aug. 19, 1997
Minyard US 6,647,430 B1 Nov. 11, 2003
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
Appeal 2009-007961
Application 10/231,606

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 6 to 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based upon the teachings of Dretzka.
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Dretzka and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art.
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Dretzka, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, and Minyard.
The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Dretzka, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, Minyard, and
Thorson.
Turning first to the anticipation rejection of claim 1, the Examiner
contends (Final Rej. 2-4) that Dretzka shows all of the computer system
structure set forth in this claim. Appellant argues (Br. 7) that (i) “Dretzka
discloses the use of a header that defines an assigned logical channel”; (ii) “a
logical channel has little, if anything, to do with a physical path (e.g.,
communication links)”; (iii) because the system described by Dretzka
“doesn’t have a priori knowledge of which physical links will be available, it
is not possible for the system of Dretzka to map the entire communication
path between the originator node and the destination node”; and (iv)
“Dretzka fails to teach the ‘logic configured to map the plurality of segments
onto at least two of the plurality of communication links, such that a
communication path is specified between the originator node and a
destination node for each of the plurality of segments’ feature of claim 1.”
In response, the Examiner indicates (Ans. 14) that in Dretzka “[l]ogical
channels are indeed assigned a physical link to transmit packets.” Thus, we
have to determine whether the communication links in Dretzka operate to
Appeal 2009-007961
Application 10/231,606

4
communicate segments of an information packet from an originator node to
a destination node as set forth in appealed claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner. Dretzka clearly explains that logical
channels are established between processors 11 and 21 to determine how the
packets will be divided and transmitted via the physical channels 40-0
through 40-4 (Figs. 1, 2, 7; col. 1, ll. 8-15; col. 2, ll. 45-48; col. 7, l. 25–col.
8, l. 46; col. 10, ll. 40-42; Abstract). We also agree with the Examiner’s
statement (Ans. 15) that the terms “physical link” and “map the entire
communication path” are not recited in the claims on appeal, and will not be
read into the claims.
In summary, the anticipation rejection of claim 1 is sustained because
each and every limitation in claim 1 is found either expressly or inherently in
Dretzka. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The anticipation rejection of claims 2 and 6 to 12 is sustained because
Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for these claims
apart from the arguments presented for claim 1.
The obviousness rejections of claims 3 to 5 are sustained because
Appellant has not presented any patentability arguments for these claims
apart from the arguments presented for claim 1.
The decision of the Examiner 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

Appeal 2009-007961
Application 10/231,606

5

babc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528