Ex Parte Finkelstein

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

13210369 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/210,369 08/15/2011 Jeff Finkelstein 33020-RA19/10206-US1 1969
124538 7590 02/23/2017
Cox Communications, Inc.
c/o Next IP Law Group LLP
Two Ravinia
Suite 500
Atlanta, GA 30346
EXAMINER
PENG, HSIUNGFEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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):
bgunter @ nextiplaw. com
bbalser @ nextiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFF FINKELSTEIN
Appeal 2016-006153
Application 13/210,369
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and SHARON FENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal 2016-006153
Application 13/210,369
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to providing broadband services having
dynamic resource allocation. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A system comprising:
a set top box configured to request allocation of data
communication resources in connection with establishment of a data
communication path for delivery of content to said set top box from a
content source, the requested allocation of data communication
resources from a broadband distribution network communicatively
connected to the set top box, the broadband distribution network
configured to communicate the request upstream along the data
communication path, each device along the data communication path
configured to dynamically allocate the requested data communication
resources according to periodic resource allocation refresh messages
during the delivery of the content.
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chapman (US 7,701,951 B2; Apr. 20, 2010) and Suzuki (US 2011/
0142103 Al; June 16, 2011).
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 4—6; see also
Reply Br. 2-4) that the combination of Chapman and Suzuki would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation
“dynamically allocate the requested data communication resources.”
The Examiner found that the Internet Protocol (IP) network of
Chapman, connecting Wide Area Network (WAN) to Set-Top Box (STB),
such IP network having pseudowires and controllers to reserve bandwidth,
corresponds to the limitation “dynamically allocate the requested data
2
Appeal 2016-006153
Application 13/210,369
communication resources.” (Ans. 3.) In particular, the Examiner found that
“Chapman at least shows that the bandwidth of the devices are dynamically
allocated (assign and reserve different bandwidth for each session) by
assigning different pseudowires to reserve bandwidth during each resource
reservation and admission control session.” {Id. at 9.) We agree with the
Examiner.
Chapman relates to “[a] resource reservation and admission control
scheme [that] uses pseudowires to reserve bandwidth over a layer-2 and/or
layer-3 network.” (Abstract.) Figure 1 of Chapman illustrates a cable
modem system (col. 2,11. 9—10), in which content 10 from Wide Area
Network (WAN) 12 is distributed over Internet Protocol (IP) network 18 to
multiple Cable Modems (CMs) 28 (col. 2,11. 32-40). Chapman explains
that “[a] resource reservation and admission control scheme is performed by
a controller 16 in the M-CMTS Core 14 and a controller 24 in the EQAM
device 22,” such controllers 16 and 24 having pseudo wires 32. (Col. 2,
11. 47—50.) Chapman further explains that “[t]he controllers 16 and 24 . . .
negotiate which VLAN tags are used for a particular communication
session” and such VLAN tags are “associated with ports having sufficient
available bandwidth for transporting content 10 from WAN 12 over IP
network 18.” (Col. 3,11. 3—8; see also Fig. 3.) Moreover, Chapman explains
that “pseudowires 32 established over the IP network 18 use the negotiated
VLAN tag to direct packets out particular egress ports 34 . . . and into
particular ingress ports 36,” and as a result, “bandwidth utilization is more
effectively controlled over particular physical links in the IP network 18.”
(Col. 3,11. 16—22.) Because the resource reservation system of Chapman
reserves different bandwidths for each communication session, such that the
3
Appeal 2016-006153
Application 13/210,369
reserved bandwidth allocation changes with each communication session,
Chapman teaches the limitation “dynamically allocate the requested data
communication resources.”
Appellant argues that “[e]ach of the devices in the communication
path of Chapman have fixed bandwidth” and thus, “[t]he bandwidth of the
devices are not dynamically allocated.” (App. Br. 6.) Similarly, Appellant
argues that “each device [as disclosed in Appellant’s Specification] (acting
as an intermediate node along the path) dynamically allocates and reserves
appropriate bandwidth,” and “[t]he nodes are not switched in or out of the
path to allocate network bandwidth as in Chapman.'” (Reply Br. 3.)
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the resource reservation system of
Chapman reserves different bandwidths for each communication session
(see, e.g., col. 3,11. 3—8; see also Fig. 3), and accordingly, the devices do not
have fixed bandwidth, but instead “dynamically allocate[s] the requested
data communication resources,” as required by claim 1.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Chapman
and Suzuki would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “dynamically allocate the requested data
communication resources.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2—7 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 14 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not
4
Appeal 2016-006153
Application 13/210,369
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 14, as well as dependent claims 9—
13 and 15—20, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5