Ex Parte Godlewski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2013

11612524 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

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.
11/612,524 12/19/2006 INV001Marcin Godlewski 60374.0297US01/968683 6272
62658 7590 03/20/2013
MERCHANT & GOULD
SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
MIAN, OMER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2013 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 MARCIN GODLEWSKI
____________

Appeal 2010-010217
Application 11/612,524
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant
1
appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM

1
The Real Party in Interest is Scientific-Atlanta, LLC.
Appeal 2010-010217
Application 11/612,524

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to systems and methods of adjusting the
bandwidth usage of digital terminal adapters. Spec. 1, ll. 6-7.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
1. A method, performed in a multimedia terminal adapter
(MTA), of adjusting bandwidth of streams carried on a
subscriber loop, the method comprising the steps of:
determining bandwidth in use on the subscriber loop;
selecting, for adjustment, at least one of a plurality of TCP
streams carried on the subscriber loop; and
adjusting at least one flow control parameter of the selected
TCP stream based on the bandwidth in use.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Mogul (US 6,560,243 B1). Ans. 3-5.

ISSUE
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is in error because Mogul does not disclose
“determining bandwidth in use on the subscriber loop,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s
rejection is flawed because the Mogul instead describes establishing a target
bandwidth allotment. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2-3. These arguments present
Appeal 2010-010217
Application 11/612,524

3
the Board with the issue: did the Examiner correctly find that Mogul teaches
determining bandwidth in use on the subscriber loop?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to
Appellant’s arguments. We do not agree with Appellant’s conclusions.

The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
Regarding Appellant’s contention that Mogul discloses establishing a
target bandwidth, but not bandwidth in use, the Examiner correctly cited to
excerpts of Mogul teaching the disputed limitation including, for example,
that Mogul teaches establishing a bandwidth allocation policy based on “the
actual (monitored) bandwidth usage (see MOGUL col. 3 lines 56-60).”
Ans. 6 (emphasis in original); see also Ans. 3, 6 (citing Mogul col. 5, ll. 38-
39 (“the policy should avoid over committing the available bandwidth of the
link . . . .”).
Appellant also argues that Mogul does not teach “adjusting at least
one flow control parameter of the selected TCP stream based on the
bandwidth in use,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5-6. However, contrary
to Appellant’s contention, in addition to teaching allocating or adjusting
bandwidth based on the bandwidth in use as explained supra, Mogul also
discloses adjusting the same flow control parameters, e.g., window size and
delay factor, Mogul Fig. 4, (note Appellant’s specification identifies these
elements as examples of control parameters, see Spec. 12). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that Mogul discloses “adjusting at least one flow control
Appeal 2010-010217
Application 11/612,524

4
parameter of the selected TCP stream based on the bandwidth in use,” as
recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and, therefore, we sustain that
rejection.
The rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
With respect to the rejection of claims 2-20, Appellant allows those
claims to fall with claim 1 by relying on the same arguments presented for
the patentability of claim 1. App. Br. 6. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

CONCLUSION
Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Mogul. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1
and of claims 2-20, falling therewith.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD