Ex Parte Froment et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2016

11762759 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111762,759 06/13/2007
30594 7590 09/20/2016
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Froment
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.
29250P-000004/US 2366
EXAMINER
KASSIM, KHALED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
pshaddin@hdp.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS FROMENT and CHRISTOPHE LEBEL
Appeal2015-005331
Application 11/762,759
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-27, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal2015-005331
Application 11/762,759
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to communication systems. See, e.g.,
Spec. 1-7, 15, claim 1 (discussing communication networks). Claim 1 is
exemplary:
1. A session initiation protocol (SIP) Proxy comprising:
reception means for incoming signaling messages
conforming with the SIP protocol originating from a
communication network;
processing means to provide outgoing signaling
messages from said incoming signaling messages possibly
modifying some parameters of said incoming signaling
messages; and
sending means to send said outgoing signaling messages
onto said communication network;
said reception means comprising a loop detection
mechanism comprising calculating a signature for an incoming
signaling message from a set of parameters of said incoming
signaling message, storing said calculated signature into a
memory, and detecting a loop by comparing said calculated
signature with values inserted in a particular parameter of said
incoming signaling message,
said sending means inserting said calculated signature in
said particular parameter of the outgoing signaling message
when said incoming signaling message is first received,
wherein the outgoing signaling message corresponds to said
incoming signaling message.
References and Rejections
Claims 1---6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Van Bemmel (US 2007 /0268904 Al, published Nov. 22,
2
Appeal2015-005331
Application 11/762,759
2007), Leichsenring (US 2009/0222674 Al, published Sept. 3, 2009), and
Filsfils (US 2006/0193248 Al, published Aug. 31, 2006).
Claims 7-9 and 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Van Bemmel, Leichsenring, Filsfils, and Eydelman (EP
1599015 Al, published Nov. 23, 2005).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Van Bemmel, Leichsenring, Filsfils, and Mayer (US 2005/0213580 Al,
published Sept. 29, 2005).
ANALYSIS
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below. 1
Appellants contend Van Bemmel and Filsfils do not collectively teach
"reception means for incoming signaling messages conforming with the SIP
protocol originating from a communication network," "said reception means
comprising a loop detection mechanism comprising calculating a signature
for an incoming signaling message from a set of parameters of said
incoming signaling message," and "said sending means inserting said
calculated signature in said particular parameter of the outgoing signaling
message when said incoming signaling message is first received, wherein the
1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2).
3
Appeal2015-005331
Application 11/762,759
outgoing signaling message corresponds to said incoming signaling
message," as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 8-14; Reply
Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellants assert Van Bemmel does not teach "when
said incoming signaling message is first received." See App. Br. 9-10;
Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue "Filsfils does not teach or suggest a method
involving session initiation protocol (SIP)" and therefore, not relevant to
claim 1. App. Br. 11. Appellants contend:
[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to
combine Filsfils with Van Bemmel due to the differences in these
methods, nor has the Examiner provided any reasoning or
statement that would otherwise cause a person of ordinary skill to
combine these references[.]
[E]ven assuming that Filsfils can be combined with Van
Bemmel ... Filsfils would modify the SIP messaging method of Van
Bemmel by rerouting messages to avoid a link failure, though the
disclosure of Filsfils has no bearing on modifying the criteria for when
Van Bemmel inserts a current routing digest into a SIP message.
1A .. pp. Br 12-13; see also Reply Br. 2, 4--5.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error.
First, because the Examiner relies on the combination of Van Bemmel
and Filsfils to teach the disputed claim limitations, Appellants cannot
establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner finds-
and Appellants do not dispute-Van Bemmel teaches the claimed
"conforming with the SIP protocol." See Final Act. 3. Therefore, Filsfils
does not need to separately teach that claim element.
Second, Appellants conclusively assert the cited references do not
teach "said reception means comprising a loop detection mechanism
comprising calculating a signature for an incoming signaling message from a
4
Appeal2015-005331
Application 11/762,759
set of parameters of said incoming signaling message" (App. Br. 9), but do
not offer any substantive argument to persuade us of error. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim");
see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that "the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art").
Third, the Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute-Van
Bemmel teaches the claimed "incoming signaling message." See Final
Act. 4. The Examiner finds-and Appellants do not offer any substantive
argument to dispute-Filsfils teaches "when [a packet] is first received."
See Final Act. 6; Ans. 4. In particular, Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner's finding that because Filsfils teaches a packet was not previously
protected, it teaches "when [a packet] is first received." See Final Act. 6;
Ans. 4; Filsfils i-f 67; see also In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391
(Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
[patentable] distinctions over the prior art."). Therefore, the Examiner finds
Van Bemmel and Filsfils collectively teach "when said incoming signaling
message is first received," as recited in claim 1.
Fourth, contrary to Appellants' assertion, the Examiner has provided
an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 4---6, 8; KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In fact, the Examiner has provided
5
Appeal2015-005331
Application 11/762,759
detailed explanations as to why one skilled in the art would have modified
Van Bemmel' s system to incorporate Filsfils' technique, and concludes that
the combination would have predictably used prior art elements according to
their established functions-an obvious improvement. See Final Act. 6;
Ans. 4---6, 8; KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Appellants do not critique the
Examiner's specific reasoning for the proposed combination, and fail to
persuasively show the Examiner's reasoning is incorrect.
Further, the Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled
artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
pieces of a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Appellants do not
present adequate evidence that the resulting arrangements were "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an
unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
418-19).
Finally, "[a] reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness
determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed
invention." In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) (citations
omitted). "Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's
endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved." Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
6
Appeal2015-005331
Application 11/762,759
The Examiner finds-and Appellants do not offer any substantive
arguments to dispute-Van Bemmel and Filsfils are analogous art, because
the references and this invention are all in the same field of communication
systems. See Final Act. 3, 6; Ans. 5---6; see, e.g., Van Bemmel i-f 2
(discussing communication networks or systems); Filsfils, Abstract
(discussing a communication network or system); Spec. 1-7, 15 (discussing
communication systems). Therefore, the Examiner properly cites Van
Bemmel and Filsfils for rejecting the claim.
Appellants' assertion that "Filsfils does not teach or suggest a method
involving session initiation protocol (SIP) and therefore, not relevant to
claim 1" (App. Br. 11) is unpersuasive, as Appellants do not provide
persuasive analysis under the case law regarding analogous art. As
discussed above, Filsfils is analogous art and therefore, proper prior art for
the rejection.
Further, Appellants' following argument is unpersuasive:
Because of the significant differences between the
method of FIG. 2 of Van Bemmel (rerouting SIP signaling
messages that have been previously received to avoid
perpetuating a malicious attack) and the method of FIG. 7 of
Filsfils (rerouting data packets around a failed link), these two
methods are not combinable.
App. Br. 12.
Appellants have not shown error because they fail to consider the
subject matters of Van Bemmel and Filsfils, but merely mischaracterize
exemplary and non-limiting embodiments of the references. See In re Bigio,
381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (we consider the "explanations of the
invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the
7
Appeal2015-005331
Application 11/762,759
embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention" to determine
the invention's field of endeavor) (citations omitted).
Contrary to Appellants' unduly narrow interpretation, Van Bemmel
and Filsfils state:
FIG. 2 depicts a method according to one embodiment of the
present invention. Specifically, method 200 includes a methodfor
detecting a forwarding loop at a network element. Although primarily
described herein with respect to processing performed by a SIP proxy
server for detecting a forwarding loop associated with a SIP message,
method 200 may be performed by other SIP and non-SIP network
elements for detecting forwarding loops associated with SIP and non-
SIP messages, respectively.
Van Bemmel i-f 18 (emphases added).
FIG. 7 illustrates a flowchart containing a sequence of
steps for performing the illustrative FRR [local fast reroute]
techniques of the present invention.
Filsfils ,-r 64.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 11, which Appellants argue are patentable for the same
arguments discussed above with respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 13.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claim 2-10 and 12-27, as Appellants do not offer separate substantive
arguments regarding those claims. See App. Br. 14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-27.
8
Appeal2015-005331
Application 11/762,759
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
9