Ex Parte GOYAL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

14502743 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/502,743 09/30/2014
46363 7590 12/03/2018
Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC
Nokia
12 Christopher Way
Suite 105
Eatontown, NJ 07724
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
AMIT GOYAL
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.
816315-US-NP 8598
EXAMINER
SLOMS, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2018 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):
docketing@trbklaw.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte AMIT GOYAL,
ABDUL RAHIM P ALAKKA TTU KAREEM,
and
V ACHASP ATHI PETER KOMPELLA 1
Appeal 2018-004115
Application 14/502,743
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-19, 21, 23, and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3
Appeal 2018-004115
Application 14/502,743
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "the field of network management
and, more particularly but not exclusively, to management of traffic
switchover between redundant pairs of nodes in a network." Spec. 1: 11-13.
Specifically, Appellants update the routing tables of an intermediate node
(Node C) "such that packets do not get 'black holed' (lost or discarded) at
Node C, but instead are propagated by Node C toward Node A [ first node]
until such time as the route to Node B [ second node] becomes the preferred
packet forwarding route in Node C's routing table." Spec. 4:27-30
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for reducing traffic loss, comprising:
establishing a tunnel between a first node and a second
node, wherein the first node and the second node are associated
as a redundant node pair; and
updating routing tables, based on an indication of a
redundant node pair switchover in which the second node enters
an active state in place of the first node, to trigger a routing
protocol to cause intermediate nodes to converge to a state in
which the intermediate nodes prefer routing traffic toward the
second node over routing traffic toward the first node;
wherein packets routed by intermediate nodes toward the
first node prior to routing protocol convergence to the second
node are routed from the first node to the second node via the
tunnel between the first node and the second node.
REJECTIONS and REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4---6, 9-11, 14--16, 18, 19, 21, 23, and
24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon the teachings of Kini (US
2013/0343180 Al, published December 26, 2013) and Lehrschall (US
7,827,307 B2, issued November 2, 2010).
2
Appeal 2018-004115
Application 14/502,743
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Kini, Lehrschall, and Trost (US
8,243,589 issued August 14, 2012).
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
based upon the teachings of Kini, Lehrschall, and Abu-Amara (US
2013/0133063 Al, published May 23, 2013).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Kini discloses all the claim limitations except for
the claim limitation "updating routing tables, ... to trigger a routing protocol
to cause intermediate nodes to converge to a state in which the intermediate
nodes prefer routing traffic toward the second node over routing traffic
toward the first node." Final Act. 3--4 (citing Kini ,r,r 21-26, Fig. 1). The
Examiner finds Lehrschall discloses this limitation. Id.
The Examiner finds Kini' s nodes BN 1 and BN2 represent the claimed
first and second nodes, respectively, and nodes ANI, SNI, and nodes there
between, are intermediate nodes. Ans. 3. Further, the Examiner finds Kini
does not explicitly recite a routing table, and relies on Lehrschall for
teaching "updating routing tables in response to network changes. For
instance, Lehrschall states ' [ wherein a] next-hop router [is] configured to
update a routing table' (col. 8, lines 16-17)." Ans. 4.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding Lehrschall discloses
the updating limitation because Lehrschall's (a) primary router (first node)
informs the media gateway of a failure so the media gateway can switch to a
secondary path to a backup router, and (b) a routing table at the next-hop
router is updated to replace the primary path connection with the secondary
3
Appeal 2018-004115
Application 14/502,743
path connection for ingress data sent from the next-hop router toward the
media gateway via redundant routers. App. Br. 17. That is, Appellants
assert Lehrschall' s functions (a) and (b) do not teach or suggest updating
routing tables at the primary router (first node) and the updating triggering a
routing protocol causing intermediate nodes to converge. App. Br. 18.
Rather, Lehrschall merely teaches the primary router informs the media
gateway of a failure so the media gateway can switch to a secondary path
( second node) to the backup router: there is no teaching or suggestion of
updating routing tables which trigger a routing protocol causing intermediate
nodes to converge, as claimed. Id. We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own. Ans.
3-7. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner Kini does not explicitly
disclose updating routing tables, but does disclose router converged
networks. Ans. 4, see also Kini's paragraphs 21-26, particularly 21-22. As
noted supra, Lehrschall, not Kini, teaches updating routing tables. Further,
Kini discloses resolving "the loss of data traffic caused by a switchover in
the access network" by having BNl establishing a tunnel to BN2 before any
switchover [from BNl to BN2] occurs. Kini ,r,r 21-22. This is consistent
with Appellants' invention. See Spec. 5: 1-16. Appellants' arguments with
respect to Kini fail to consider the combined teachings of Kini and
Lehrschall, but merely recite the claim language and state Kini does not
provide any basis for triggering a routing protocol to cause nodes to
converge, without disputing the Examiner's specific findings in Kini's
4
Appeal 2018-004115
Application 14/502,743
paragraph 22 and how this can be combined with Lehrschall' s teachings.
Reply Br. 3.
As to the Examiner's findings regarding Lehrschall teaching updating
routing tables (see Ans. 4---6), Appellants again merely recite the claim
language and state neither Kini nor Lehrschall teach or suggest this
limitation, without sufficient evidence disputing the Examiner's findings.
Reply Br. 4--7. For example, Lehrschall teaches that "said next-hop router
being configured to update a routing table of said next-hop router in
response to notification of said network interface failure" (8: 16-18).
Appellants' argument against Kini separately from Lehrschall does not
persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26
(CCPA 1981).
As to, independent claims 21, 23, and 24, Appellants assert these
claims include additional features and context not included in independent
claims 1, 11, and 19, but only argue the combination of Kini and Lehrschall
does not teach a processor configured to update routing information (App.
Br. 22-23), which is similarly claimed in claim 1. Appellants' Reply Brief
newly adds that claim 21 recites the intermediate node receives packets sent
toward the first node (Reply Br. 9), claim 23 recites updating the first node
based on the switch from the active state to the standby state (Reply Br. 10),
and claim 24 recites updating the first node based on the switch from the
standby state to the active state (Reply Br. 12-13). Appellants contend the
Examiner has not addressed these limitations except to incorrectly find
5
Appeal 2018-004115
Application 14/502,743
Kini's paragraphs 21 and 22 (Ans. 6) support these limitations. We do not
agree. Rather, we agree with the Examiner's rational findings supported by
Kini' s paragraphs 21 and 22, which Appellants do not address with
particularity.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1,
11, 19, 21, 23, and 24, and dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 12-18, for
which no substantive arguments were provided.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-19, 21, 23, and 24 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
6