Ex Parte Fourcand

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 22, 2014

11735604 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2014)

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.
11/735,604 04/16/2007 Serge Francois Fourcand 4194-04800 2300
89394 7590 08/22/2014
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
EXAMINER
HOANG, THAI D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SERGE FRANCOIS FOURCAND
____________

Appeal 2012-001202
Application 11/735,604
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ANDREW J. DILLON, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a network component comprising
a processor configured to implement a method comprising promoting the
communication of a frame within a synchronization window, wherein the
frame comprises a plurality of data types carried in a plurality of timeslots,
and wherein each timeslot is assigned to carry one of the data types,
identifying an idle timeslot that is assigned to carry a first data type, and
inserting a second data type into the idle timeslot. See Abstract.
Appeal 2012-001202
Application 11/735,604
2
Claims 1 and 10, which are reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, are illustrative of the claimed invention:
1. A network component comprising:
a processor coupled to a memory and configured to implement
a method comprising:
promoting the communication of a frame within a
synchronization window, wherein the frame comprises a plurality of
data types carried in a plurality of timeslots, and wherein each
timeslot is assigned to carry one of the data types;
identifying an idle timeslot that is assigned to carry a first data
type; and
inserting a second data type into the idle timeslot.

10. A method comprising:
receiving a data stream comprising a plurality of timeslots,
wherein each timeslot is assigned to carry one of a plurality of data
types; and
determining whether one of the timeslots assigned to carry a
first data type contains a second data type.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Edem US 5,361,261 Nov. 1, 1994
Pei US 6,272,109 B1 Aug. 7, 2001
Yuang US 6,859,458 B2 Feb. 22, 2005

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Yuang. Ans. 4–5.
1

2. The Examiner rejected claims 1–6, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 16–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yuang and Pei. Ans. 5–9.

1
Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 11,
2011; and the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 24, 2011.
Appeal 2012-001202
Application 11/735,604
3
3. The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Yuang, Pei and Edem. Ans. 8, 9.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8–27) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 5–21) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions with respect to claims 1–5 and 7–20. We agree with Appellant
with respect to claim 6. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken with
respect to claims 1–5 and 7–20 (Ans. 4–9), and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer, with respect to claims 1–5 and 7–
20, in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 10–13). We disagree with
the Examiner’s conclusion with respect to claim 6. We highlight and
amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 10, 11,
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yuang based upon the
failure of Yuang to disclose “determining whether one of the timeslots
assigned to carry a first data type contains a second data type” as set forth in
claim 10. App. Br. 8–13.
Specifically, Appellant argues that Yuang “neither places ABR cells
into SCR slots nor places SCR cells into ABR slots, and thus fails to teach
determining whether one of the timeslots assigned to carry a first data type
contains a second data type.” Id. at 9.
Appeal 2012-001202
Application 11/735,604
4
Appellant’s position is based upon an interpretation of Figure 1 of
Yuang, which is depicted below:

As illustrated, Figure 1 of Yuang depicts the structure of the frame in
an uplink channel. Appellant argues that Yuang, within the C-type
Bandwidth, does not place SCR cells into ABR slots “because the ABR slots
are not designated as ABR slots until after the number of SCR slots have
been determined. . . ” Id.
The Examiner finds that, within Yuang, the C-type Bandwidth is fixed
and thus, the initial prediction of SCR timeslots prior to starting a frame
necessarily dictates that the remainder of the timeslots within the C-type
Bandwidth are ABR slots. That is, the total number of slots of C-type
bandwidth, less the slots initially designated as SCR slots, must necessarily
be designated as ABR slots. Thereafter, in the event of an SCR timeslot
collision, and the designation of additional SCR slots, timeslots which were
initially designated as ABR slots become designated as SCR slots, meeting
the claimed limitation of a timeslot assigned to carry a first data type (ABR)
conatins a second data type (SCR). Ans. 10–11.
We concur with the Examiner. Upon the initial designation of SCR
timeslots within the limited bandwidth of the C-type Bandwidth, we find the
remaining timeslots are effectively designated as ABR slots. Thereafter, in
the event of an SCR timeslot collision, which requires additional SCR
Appeal 2012-001202
Application 11/735,604
5
timeslots to be designated, selected timeslots previously within the ABR
timeslot region of the C-type Bandwidth are thereafter utilized as SCR
timeslots, meeting the claimed limitation.
With regard to claim 15, Appellant argues that Yuang fails to
determine whether a timeslot assigned to carry a first data type contains a
second data type, as argued above, and that further, Yuang fails to disclose
processing data in accordance with that determination. App. Br. 13–14.
The Examiner finds that claim 15 depends from claim 10 and merely
recites the additional step of “processing each of the timeslots assigned to
carry the first data type in accordance with the determination.” Ans. 11.
We find the Examiner did not err in view of the fact that Yuang
clearly teaches processing SCR and ABR timeslots in accordance with the
type of data contained within each timeslot.
With regard to claims 1–9, 12–14, and 16–20, Appellant argues the
cited references fail to disclose or suggest “identifying an idle timeslot that
is assigned to carry a first data type” and then “inserting a second data type
into the idle timeslot” as set forth in claim 1; or, “communicating a frame
comprising a portion assigned to carry high priority data; determining
whether a part of the portion is not carrying the high priority data; and
reusing the part of the portion to carry a low priority data,” as set forth in
claim 16. App. Br. 14–21 and 26–27.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance upon Pei
for teaching transmitting a low priority cell in a timeslot while processing
high priority cells is improper. Appellant argues that Pei fails to teach
transmission of a low priority cell within a high priority timeslot since Pei’s
scheduler does not assign a timeslot to carry high priority data until after
verifying that a high priority cell is ready to be sent. App. Br. 15–16.
Appeal 2012-001202
Application 11/735,604
6
The Examiner finds that Pei’s Abstract discloses promoting the
communication of a frame within a synchronization window (ATM
window), wherein each timeslot of the time frame is assigned to carry one of
the data types (high priority for constant bit rate CBR, low priority for
available bit rate ABR); identifying an idle timeslot that is assigned to carry
a first data type; and inserting a second data type into the idle timeslot. Ans.
6.
Thus, the Examiner urges that in the absence of a high priority cell to
be transmitted in a timeslot designated for that purpose, a low priority cell is
transmitted. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. The determination by Pei that a high
priority service did not result in a cell transmission during a time slot and the
use, thereafter, of that time slot for transmission of a low priority cell
suggests the claimed “second data type into the idle timeslot” of claim 1, as
well as the “reusing the part of the portion to carry a low priority data” of
claim 16.
With respect to claims 2–4, we concur with the Examiner’s reasoning
that the use of a status bit to indicate the content or active/inactive status of a
timeslot is well known in the art. Ans. 12.
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s allegation that the use of a
status bit within a timeslot is well known in the art, urging that such a
finding is “inappropriate.” Reply Br. 15.
We are not persuaded. An adequate traverse must contain adequate
information or argument to create on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding
the circumstances justifying notice of what is well known to one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). Appellant’s
argument fails to create such reasonable doubt.
Appeal 2012-001202
Application 11/735,604
7

Appellant argues, with respect to claim 6, that the cited references fail
to show or suggest “interrupting the second data type stream by inserting the
first data type into the active timeslot.” Appellant urges that Yuang and Pei
fail to show or suggest inserting a second data type into an idle timeslot,
identifying an active timeslot following the idle timeslot and interrupting a
second data type stream by inserting a first data type into the active timeslot.
App. Br. 25–26.
The Examiner finds that Pei clearly discloses the features recited in
claim 6:
identifying an active timeslot (high priority CBR slots)
following the idle timeslot (ABR slots), the active time slot
assigned to carry the first data type (High priority CBR cells);
and interrupting the second data type stream (ABR) by inserting
the first data type into the active timeslot (step 7, interrupting
ABR cells to transmit high priority CBR cells).

Ans. 13.
We disagree with the Examiner. While we agree that the cited
references suggest the utilization of an idle timeslot assigned to one data
type to be assigned to as second data type, we find no suggestion of
interrupting an active timeslot following the idle timeslot and interrupting
the second type data stream by inserting a first data type. We, therefore, find
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 based
upon the argument urged above with respect to claim 3. App. Br. 26.
For the reasons we set forth above, we are unpersuaded by the
Appellant’s argument and we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 14.
Appeal 2012-001202
Application 11/735,604
8

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–5 and 7–20. The
Examiner did err in the rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yuang and Pei.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5 and 7–20 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 6 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
rwk