Ex Parte Haggar et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 23, 2011

09841136 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 23, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEFFREY DOUGLAS HAGGAR and
JERRY WAYNE STEVENS
____________

Appeal 2009-011714
Application 09/841,136
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention improves data transfer efficiency between
interconnected components of a virtual network by packing outbound data
Appeal 2009-011714
Application 09/841,136

2
packets in a buffer, and transmitting the buffer in a single operation. See
generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of transferring data in a virtual network,
comprising:
allocating one or more outbound packing buffers for each
of a plurality of particular network addresses;
packing outbound data packets into appropriate ones of
the outbound packing buffers, according to a network address
within a header of each outbound data packet; and
transmitting each outbound packing buffer onto the
virtual network in a single transmission operation.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Hemmady US 4,872,159 Oct. 3, 1989
Morrison US 5,854,903 Dec. 29, 1998
Roberson US 6,016,496 Jan. 18, 2000

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Hemmady. Ans. 4-5, 7.1

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 8,
2005 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 9, 2006. Although the
Examiner reproduces the non-final rejection in the Grounds of Rejection
section of the Answer (Ans. 3-7), we nonetheless refer to the reproduced
final office action (Ans. 7-10)—the action from which the appeal was
taken—in this decision. The Examiner, however, did not provide detailed
grounds of rejection for the final anticipation rejection apart from a
statement of the rejection (unlike other rejections). Compare Ans. 7 with
Ans. 8-10. Apparently, the Examiner relies on the grounds for the
anticipation rejection that were articulated in connection with the non-final
anticipation rejection. Compare Ans. 4-5 with Ans. 7. We therefore
Appeal 2009-011714
Application 09/841,136

3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hemmady. Ans. 8.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 10, and 20-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hemmady and “what was well known
in the art (as exemplified by Morrison).” Ans. 9-10.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hemmady
(1) allocates “packing buffers” (first-in-first-out (FIFO) buffers) to each user
interface module (UIM) that are said to have particular network addresses,
and (2) packs outbound data packets into these buffers according to a
network address within each packet’s header. Ans. 10-11.
Appellants argue that since each FIFO corresponds to a different UIM
associated with a particular user, outbound data packets are packed based on
the sending user—not network addresses as claimed. Br. 4-5. Appellants
add that Hemmady does not disclose various features recited in claims 2, 5,
and 13 summarized below. The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Hemmady:
(1)(a) allocates outbound packing buffers for each of plural particular
network addresses, and (b) packs outbound data packets into appropriate

presume that the Examiner intended to incorporate these detailed grounds by
reference in the final rejection from which the appeal was taken.

Appeal 2009-011714
Application 09/841,136

4
ones of these buffers according to a network address within each packet’s
header as recited in claim 1?
(2) (a) divides each outbound packing buffer into multiple frames, the
frames associated with second network addresses, (b) packs outbound data
packets into selected frames of selected buffers, and (c) the packet’s header
specifies the first and second network addresses which correspond to the
selected buffer and frame as recited in claim 5?
(3) discloses that each particular network address is a “next-hop”
address on the virtual network as recited in claim 2?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Hemmady’s metropolitan area network (MAN) enables data packet
communication between end-user systems (EUSs) 26. Each EUS has a
corresponding UIM 13 that communicates with an associated network
interface module (NIM) 2 within the MAN. The NIMs are connected to
associated memory interface modules (MINTs) 11 in the MAN’s hub 1
which functions as a switching center. Hemmady, Abstract; col. 2, ll. 25-52;
col. 5, l. 40 – col. 6, l. 61; Figs. 2-4.
2. The MAN recognizes two EUS transaction sizes: (1) long user
work units (LUWUs), and (2) short user work units (SUWUs). Packets are
kept intact as a single frame or packet as they move through the network.
LUWUs containing data and control information (e.g., destination address,
user protocol, etc.) are fragmented into frames or packets by the transmitting
UIM. SUWUs are contained in single packet. Hemmady, col. 7, ll. 4-26;
col. 59, ll. 5-24.
Appeal 2009-011714
Application 09/841,136

5
3. The UIM has a memory queue 15 (labelled “TRANSMIT FIFO” in
Fig. 4) that stores information on its way to the network. Packets and
SUWUs are stored and forwarded to the NIM. Hemmady, col. 7, ll. 50-53;
Fig. 4.
4. The NIM has small queues 94 (labelled “FIFO” in Fig. 4) in
memory similar to memory queue 15 found in the UIM for each EUS.
These queues (1) receive information from the UIM, and (2) store this
information until the external link (XL) is available for transmission to the
MINT. Hemmady, col. 8, ll. 11-18; Fig. 4.
5. The MINT performs various control, routing, queue management,
and buffering functions. Data enters the MINT via packets, each with its
own header containing routing information. The MINT’s external link
handler (XLH) retains a copy of the pertinent header fields as it deposits the
entire packet into the buffer memory. This header information, along with
the buffer memory address and length, is then passed to central control 20
which determines the destination NIM from the address, and adds this block
to the list of blocks awaiting transmission to the same destination. The list
of memory blocks is transmitted upon securing an appropriate connection
via a switch controller. Hemmady, col. 9, ll. 17-24; col. 30, l. 30 – col. 31, l.
27; Fig. 10.
6. The UIM to MINT message format includes MAN header 610
including (1) a Destination Address 612 specifying the EUS to which the
packet is being sent, and (2) Source Address 614 specifying the EUS that
sent the message. Hemmady, col. 61, ll. 10-18, 46-50; col. 62, ll. 34-37; Fig.
20.

Appeal 2009-011714
Application 09/841,136

6
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 8
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of representative claim 1 which recites, in pertinent
part, (1) allocating outbound packing buffers for each of plural particular
network addresses, and (2) packing outbound data packets into appropriate
ones of these buffers according to a network address within each packet’s
header. Although the UIMs are associated with particular end-users as
Appellants indicate (Br. 5), the UIMs are nonetheless also associated with
particular network addresses, namely those of the respective end users that
originate and receive messages as designated in the packets’ headers for
routing purposes (i.e., source and destination addresses). FF 2, 6. We
therefore see no error in the Examiner’s position (Ans. 10-11) that the
UIM’s FIFO buffers would be allocated for each network address, for these
buffers store data packets sent from associated end-user UIMs that are
likewise associated with particular network addresses, at least the source
address contained in the packet’s header. See FF 2, 4, 6. We reach this
conclusion despite the one-to-one relationship between a particular UIM and
NIM FIFO buffer in Hemmady’s Figure 4 (FF 4), for claim 1 does not
preclude buffer allocation and data packing involving these devices which
would be at least in accordance with a network address within the outbound
data packet’s header.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claim 8 not separately argued with particularity.

Appeal 2009-011714
Application 09/841,136

7
Claims 5-7 and 11-13
We will not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 5. Although Hemmady’s packet headers contain routing information
including source and destination addresses as the Examiner indicates (Ans.
11-12; FF 2, 6), the Examiner fails to show that Hemmady necessarily (1)
divides each outbound packing buffer into multiple frames, the frames
associated with second network addresses; (2) packs outbound data packets
into selected frames of selected buffers; and (3) the packet’s header specifies
the first and second network addresses which correspond to the selected
buffer and frame. Although Hemmady (1) maintains packets as a single
frame as they travel through the network, and (2) fragments longer messages
into frames or packets (FF 2), that hardly means that each outbound packing
buffer would necessarily be divided into plural frames, let alone that these
frames would be associated with second network addresses as claimed.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
claim 5; (2) independent claim 11 which recites commensurate limitations;
and (3) dependent claims 6, 7, 12, and 13 for similar reasons. Since our
decision is dispositive regarding our reversing the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 5 and 11, we need not address Appellants’ separate arguments
regarding claims 7 and 13 (Br. 6-7).

Claims 2, 3, and 9
We will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 which
recites that each particular network address is a “next-hop” address on the
virtual network. Even assuming that routing packets in “typical” networks
involves sending packets to intermediate destinations via multiple network
Appeal 2009-011714
Application 09/841,136

8
devices as the Examiner asserts (Ans. 12-13), that does not mean that
Hemmady’s network address is necessarily a next-hop address, namely an
address that indicates the next (as opposed to final) destination. Not only
does the Examiner’s reliance on “typical” network characteristics not
necessarily hold true for all networks, let alone Hemmady’s network,
Hemmady’s source and destination addresses indicate the end-user systems
(i.e., final destinations)—not intermediate destinations. See FF 6. And even
if there were no intermediate routing destinations in Hemmady such that the
destination address represented the packet’s next (and only) hop, that too is
not necessarily the case. In any event, to the extent the Examiner’s position
is based on the packet’s source and destination addresses as somehow
inherently providing a “next-hop” address is unsubstantiated and strains
reasonable limits on this record. We are therefore persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2, and claims 3 and 9 which recite
commensurate limitations.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Since Appellants have not particularly pointed out errors in the
Examiner’s position regarding claims 4, 10, and 23, we therefore sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these claims.2 And since independent

2 Although Appellants ask us to separately consider patentability of the
dependent claims since the Examiner allegedly did not do so (Br. 7), this
request not only does not particularly show error in the Examiner’s position
articulated in the rejections on appeal, but it asks the Board to, in effect,
assume the role of an Examiner regarding these claims to examine them in
the first instance on appeal—a role that we decline to undertake. To the
extent Appellants allege that their claims were inadequately examined
during prosecution is a petitionable matter under 37 C.F.R. 1.181—not an
Appeal 2009-011714
Application 09/841,136

9
claim 14 is commensurate with claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 14 (and claim 16 not argued with
particularity) for similar reasons. But since independent claim 17 is
commensurate with independent claim 5, we reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 17 (and dependent claims 18, 19, and 22) for
reasons similar to those for claim 5. We likewise reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of (1) claim 21 dependent from claim 11, and (2) claims 20 and 24
dependent from claim 5 for the reasons indicated with respect to claims 5
and 11, respectively. And we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15
which is commensurate with claim 2 for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
Under § 102, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 8, but
erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, and 11-13. Under § 103, the Examiner
did not err in rejecting claims 4, 10, 14, 16, and 23, but erred in rejecting
claims 15, 17-22, and 24.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24 is affirmed-in-part.
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).

appealable matter. Since we lack jurisdiction over this matter, it is therefore
not before us. See MPEP § 706.01 (“[T]he Board will not hear or decide
issues pertaining to objections and formal matters which are not properly
before the Board.”); see also MPEP § 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily
hear a question that should be decided by the Director on petition . . . .”).

Appeal 2009-011714
Application 09/841,136

10

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

llw