Ex Parte Hoang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2014

10626055 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
10/626,055 07/23/2003 Khoi Nhu Hoang 6518P002C 1434
7590 09/30/2014
Daniel M. DeVos
Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman LLP
Seventh Floor
12400 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1030
EXAMINER
LI, SHI K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2637
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2014 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 KHOI NHU HOANG and SANTOSH KUMAR SADANANDA
____________

Appeal 2011-005600
Application 10/626,055
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants
1
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–3, 5–11, 13–16, 18–21, 23–27, 30–46, 49–53, 56–60, 62–67, 69–
72, 74, and 75.
2
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1
According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Dynamic Method
Enterprises Limited, Hong Kong (App. Br. 1).

2
Claims 4, 12, 17, 22, 28, 29, 47, 48, 54, 55, 61, 68, and 73 have been
cancelled.
Appeal 2011-005600
Application 10/626,055

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to wavelength division multiplexing
(WDM) optical networks and applying quality of service (QoS) based
criteria to the physical network topology of the WDM network (see Spec.
¶ 23). Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
creating a plurality of separate service levels by applying
a set of one or more connectivity constraints that include
quality of service (QoS) based criteria on a physical network
topology of a wave length division multiplexing optical
network to divide said optical network into said plurality of
separate service levels, wherein the connectivity constraints are
based on a conversion criteria;
determining service level topologies for each of said
plurality of separate service levels for each of a plurality of
access nodes in the optical network, wherein each service level
topology is a network topology that includes a smaller number
of end to end paths than an entire network topology of the
optical network and said each service level topology comprises
end to end paths satisfying the corresponding service level from
that access node to all other reachable access nodes in said
optical network as destinations, wherein an end to end path
between two access nodes is the set of two or more links and
available wavelengths on that end to end path between the two
access nodes, wherein allocated and unallocated wavelengths
are considered available wavelengths; and
storing the plurality of service level topologies in a
service level connectivity database for each access node and on
that access node, wherein the service level connectivity
database includes a service level topology structure for each of
the plurality of service level topologies and each service level
topology structure references the end to end paths for that
access node satisfying the corresponding service level, wherein
each of the set of end to end paths for that service level
Appeal 2011-005600
Application 10/626,055

3
references a set of links satisfying that service level on that
possible end to end path, wherein the set of links references
available wavelengths for that possible end to end path
satisfying that service level.
References

Okajima US 2002/0120766 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
Melaku US 2003/0074443 A1 Apr. 17, 2003
Matsuura US 2003/0198227 A1 Oct. 23, 2003
Desnoyers US 6,791,948 B1 Sept. 14, 2004
Battou US 7,013,084 B2 Mar. 14, 2006

Nada Golmie et al., A Differentiated Optical Services Model for WDM
Networks, IEEE Communications Magazine, February 2000, pp. 68–73.
Admela Jukan et al., Constraint-Based Path Selection Methods for
On-demand Provisioning in WDM Networks, IEEE INFOCOM 2002, June
23–27, 2002, pp. 827–836.
Jonathan P. Lang et al., Link Management Protocol, draft-ietf-mpls-
lmp-02.txt, 2001, September 2001.
N. Deo, Graph Theory with Applications to Engineering and
Computer Science, Prentice- Hall, 1974, pp. 137–144.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–3, 5–8, 14, 15, 18–20, 23–27, 31, 32, 34–38, 40–46, 49–53,
56, 71, and 72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Golmie, Jukan, and Desnoyers (Ans. 3–7).
Claims 9, 33, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Golmie, Jukan, Desnoyers, and Lang (Ans. 7).
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Golmie, Jukan, Desnoyers, and Okajima (Ans. 7–8).
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Golmie, Jukan, Desnoyers, and Matsuura (Ans. 8–9).
Appeal 2011-005600
Application 10/626,055

4
Claims 6 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Golmie, Jukan, Desnoyers, and Battou (Ans. 9–10).
Claims 30, 57–60, 62–67, 69, and 70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Golmie, Jukan, Desnoyers, and Melaku
(Ans. 10–11).
Claims 74 and 75 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Golmie, Jukan, Desnoyers, and Deo (Ans. 11).
Appellants’ Contentions
1. With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend that the
combination of Golmie, Jukan, Desnoyers relates to “a QoS service model in
the optical domain based on a set of optical parameters that captures the
quality and reliability of an optical lightpath (not paths and wavelengths
individually) . . .” (Br. 16–17).
2. Appellants assert that because Jukan does not determine service
level topologies for multiple service levels, the reference does not disclose
the claimed ‘“determining service level topologies . . . said each service
level topology comprises end to end paths satisfying the corresponding
service level from that access node to all other reachable access nodes in
said optical network as destinations”’ (id. at 18).
3. Appellants contend that the proposed combination does not
disclose ‘“determining service level topologies . . . said each service level
topology comprises end to end paths satisfying the corresponding service
level from that access node to all other reachable access nodes in said optical
network as destinations”’ because Desnoyers does not teach or suggest
service level topologies (id.).
Appeal 2011-005600
Application 10/626,055

5
4. Appellants further contend that the applied references do not
disclose “any particular structure of a network topology database” (id.).
5. With respect to the propriety of combining the references,
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown the difference between
the claim and the prior art Further, Appellants argue that the combination is
improper by discussing the Moy reference (id. at 19), a reference which is
not among the references the Examiner relied on for rejecting the claims.
6. Regarding claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 71, and 72, Appellant present
arguments similar to those presented for claim 1 (id. at 20–23).
7. Regarding the remaining rejections, Appellants merely contend
that because the additional references are not related to service level
topologies, they cannot be properly combined with Golmie, Jukan, and
Desnoyers (id. at 21–28).
Issue on Appeal
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over
Golmie, Jukan, and Desnoyers, alone or in combination with the other cited
prior art, because the combination of references does not teach or suggest the
disputed features recited in the claims?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal 2011-005600
Application 10/626,055

6
Appeal Brief (see Ans. 12–13). However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
With respect to the above contention 1, as explained by the Examiner
(Ans. 4, 12), the proposed combination does not require bodily incorporating
the reference teachings. In fact, the combination is based on a specific
modification such that discovery of wavelength path of Jukan (see p. 831) is
used in the dense wavelength-division multiplexing (DWDM) network of
Golmie offering multiple service levels.
Regarding Appellants’ contentions 2 and 3, the Examiner has
identified the relevant portions of each reference and has properly concluded
that the proposed combination would result in the claimed features. The
Examiner has specifically provided sufficient explanation with
corresponding citations to various portions of each reference for teaching or
suggesting the disputed claim features (Ans. 4–5, 12–13). We specifically
agree with the Examiner’s findings that storing end-to-end path information
of Desnoyers (col. 7, ll. 1–37) and the service-differentiated path
information of Jukan (pp. 829–830), in combination with the optical
resource allocator of Golmie (p. 72), would have suggested the recited
“determining service level topologies . . . said each service level topology
comprises end to end paths satisfying the corresponding service level from
that access node to all other reachable access nodes in said optical network
as destinations.”
With respect to Appellants’ contention 4, we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 13) that Golmie suggests a specific structure for a network topology
database by disclosing that “[t]he optical resource allocator keeps track of
the resources, such as the number of wavelengths, links, crossconnects, and
Appeal 2011-005600
Application 10/626,055

7
amplifiers, available for each lightpath . . .” (Golmie, p. 72). As explained
by the Examiner (Ans. 4–5, 13), the specific items listed as the monitored
resources suggest the arrangement or the particular structure of the database
for keeping track of those resources.
Regarding Appellants’ contention 5, we further agree with the
Examiner’s reasoning (Ans. 4–5, 13) that using Jukan’s discovering path
information and discovering the network topology of Golmie would have
been obvious and available to the skilled artisan as a known way for
identifying and keeping track of the resources. As stated by the Supreme
Court, “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Alternatively stated, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill
can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”
Id. at 417. Therefore, we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion that the
combination of Golmie with Jukan and Desnoyers would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art all the limitations of independent claim 1.
With respect to the remaining claims, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions based on the same reasoning discussed above for
claim 1.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the disputed claim limitations, the Examiner has not
erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over Golmie, Jukan, and
Appeal 2011-005600
Application 10/626,055

8
Desnoyers, or in combination with various cited prior art references.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1–3, 5–
11, 13–16, 18–21, 23–27, 30–46, 49–53, 56–60, 62–67, 69–72, 74, and 75.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–11, 13–16, 18–21,
23–27, 30–46, 49–53, 56–60, 62–67, 69–72, 74, and 75 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD