Ex Parte Holmeide et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 15, 2011

10465945 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 15, 2011)

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.
10/465,945 11/12/2003 Oyvind Holmeide KN9208 6205
7590 04/15/2011
Michael M Rickin
ABB Inc
Legal Department
29801 Euclid Avenue
Wickliffe, OH 44092
EXAMINER
FEARER, MARK D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte OYVIND HOLMEIDE, TOR SKEIE,
CHRISTOFFER APNESETH,
SVEIN JOHANSSEN, and TROND LOKSTAD
____________
Appeal 2009-007181
Application 10/465,9451
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAY P. LUCAS, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed on November 12, 2003. This application is a national stage entry of
PCT/NO01/00515, filed on December 12/28/2001. PCT/NO01/00515
claims foreign priority to 20006683, filed December 28, 2000. The real
party in interest is ABB Research Ltd. (Br. 2.)
Appeal 2009-007181
Application 10/465,945

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 5 through 7. (Br. 2.) Claims 2
through 4 have been allowed. (Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2008).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method for identifying inaccurate time
measurements in a local area network (hereinafter “LAN”). (Spec. 1, ll. 5-
7.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claims 1 and 5 further illustrate the invention as follows:
1. Method for identifying inaccurate time measurements when
running time synchronization on a local area network, the local area
network comprising a sending device (2), a destination device (3) and
a switching device and/or a store-and-forward device (6) arranged on
a path (1) between the sending device (2) and the destination device
(3), the method comprising: rejecting each time request packet (4) that
arrives at the destination device (3) within a given time interval t from
a preceding network packet.

5. A method for identifying inaccurate time measurements when
running time synchronization on a local area network, the local area
network comprising a sending device, a destination device and a
switching device and/or a store- and-forward device connected
between the sending device and the destination device, the method
comprising:

receiving a network packet and then a time request packet at the
destination device;

measuring the time between the received network packet and
the received time request packet; and
Appeal 2009-007181
Application 10/465,945

3
rejecting the received time request packet if the measured time
is within a predetermined time interval.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Bader US 5,901,138 May 4, 1999
Godoroja US 2002/0012270 A1 Aug. 9, 2001
(filed Jul. 11, 1997)
Kotzur US 6,389,480 B1 May 14, 2002
(filed Aug. 1, 2000)
Bullard US 6,625,657 B1 Sept. 23, 2003
(filed Mar. 25, 1999)

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Bullard and Godoroja.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kotzur.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kotzur and Bader.
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that Bullard discloses combining two
records with overlapping time intervals, whereas the method recited in
independent claim 1 is directed to identifying an inaccurate time
measurement. (Br. 3-4.) Appellants also argue that Godoroja discloses
relieving congestion at a receiving device by delaying messages sent to the
receiving device, whereas the claimed method is directed to identifying
inaccurate time measurements. (Id. at 4-5.) In particular, Appellants allege
Appeal 2009-007181
Application 10/465,945

4
that Godoroja discloses performing a delay at a sending device if it receives
a message from a receiving device indicating that the receiving device is
congested. (Id. at 5.) Appellants further contend that Godoroja does not
teach or fairly suggest performing the delay if the message is within a given
time interval from a preceding message, as claimed. (Id.)
2. Appellants contend that Kotzur’s disclosure of a programmable
arbitration system does not teach or fairly suggest identifying inaccurate
time measurements, let alone measuring the time between two message
packets and rejecting the latter packet if it is within a predetermined time
interval. (Id. at 6-7.) In particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner cites
to multiple columns and line numbers within Kotzur’s disclosure without
applying the teaching of each disclosure to the method steps recited in
independent claim 5. (Id.)
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
1. The Examiner finds that Godoroja discloses a method of
controlling network congestion that includes rejecting message packets and
designating delay times between sent message packets. (Id. at 16-17.)
Therefore, the Examiner finds that Godoroja teaches or fairly suggests
“rejecting each time request packet (4) that arrives at the destination device
(3) within a given time interval t from a preceding network packet,” as
recited in independent claim 1. (Id.)
2. The Examiner finds that Kotzur’s disclosure of a programmable
arbitration system for determining the priority of ports in a network switch
teaches or fairly suggests the method steps recited in independent claim 5.
(Id. at 20-22.)

Appeal 2009-007181
Application 10/465,945

5
II. ISSUES
1. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that the combination of Bullard and Godoroja renders independent claim 1
unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether the proffered
combination teaches or fairly suggests “rejecting each time request packet
(4) that arrives at the destination device (3) within a given time interval t
from a preceding network packet,” as recited in independent claim 1.
2. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that Kotzur renders independent claim 5 unpatentable? In particular, the
issue turns on whether the Kotzur teaches or fairly suggests “rejecting the
received time request packet if the measured time is within a predetermined
time interval,” as recited in independent claim 5.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (hereinafter “FF”) are shown by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Bullard
FF 1. Bullard’s figure 1 depicts an arrangement (10) for collecting
information from a network. (Col. 2, ll. 38-39.) Bullard discloses an
accounting process (14) that includes a flow data collection layer (18) which
runs as client processes with the equipment interfaces on or close to the
network devices (12). (Id. at ll. 45-47.) Bullard also discloses that the
accounting process (13) includes a flow aggregation and distribution process
that runs as a server process on a server (15). (Id. at ll. 49-51.)

Appeal 2009-007181
Application 10/465,945

6
Godoroja
FF 2. Godoroja discloses that if a sender receives a reply indicating
that a message was rejected because of congestion, the sender places the
message in a temporary congestion queue and re-sends the message after a
delay specified by the receiver. (2: ¶ [0018].)
Kotzur
FF 3. Kotzur discloses a Control/Age byte that includes a binary age
number which represents the elapsed time from the last source access
associated with a device. (Col. 52, ll. 7-10.) Further, Kotzur discloses the
central processing unit (hereinafter “CPU”) (230) determines if the device is
aged and may delete the device from the hash entry after a pre-determined
amount of time of non-use. (Id. at ll. 10-13.)

IV. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Combination of Bullard and Godoroja
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “rejecting each time
request packet (4) that arrives at the destination device (3) within a given
time interval t from a preceding network packet.”
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Bullard discloses an
accounting process that includes a flow data collection layer that works in
conjunction with the equipment interfaces on the network devices to run
client processes. (FF 1.) Bullard also discloses that the accounting process
runs a server process on a server. (Id.) We find that Bullard’s disclosure
teaches a network that includes a flow data collection layer that connects a
server to multiple network devices via an accounting process.
Appeal 2009-007181
Application 10/465,945

7
Next, Godoroja discloses that if a sender receives a reply indicating
that a message was rejected by a receiver because of congestion in the
network, the sender re-transmits the message after a delay specified by the
receiver. (FF 2.) We find that Godoroja’s disclosure teaches that the
receiver rejects and delays a message based on the congestion in the network
before establishing a given time interval for the sender to send the message
again. At best, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
appreciated substituting one of Bullard’s network devices for Godoroja’s
receiver such that the respective network device is capable of rejecting and
delaying a message based on congestion in the network before establishing a
given time interval for sending the message again. However, we find that
the proffered combination does not teach or fairly suggest rejecting a
received message because it falls within a given time interval of a preceding
message, as claimed. Thus, we find that the Examiner improperly relied
upon the proffered combination to teach or fairly suggest the disputed
limitation.
Since Appellants have shown at least one error in the rejection of
independent claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other
arguments. It follows that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of Bullard and Godoroja renders
independent claim 1 unpatentable.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Kotzur
Claim 5
Independent claim 5 recites, in relevant part, “rejecting the received
time request packet if the measured time is within a predetermined time
interval.”
Appeal 2009-007181
Application 10/465,945

8
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Kotzur discloses a
hash table entry corresponding to a network device that includes a
Control/Age byte, which indicates the elapsed time from the last source
access request associated with the network device. (FF 3.) Further, Kotzur
discloses that the CPU can utilize the Control/Age byte to determine that the
network device has been inactive for a predetermined amount of time and,
subsequently, delete the device from the hash entry. (Id.) At best, we find
that Kotzur’s disclosure teaches utilizing a byte of a hash entry associated
with a network device to determine the last time the network device was
used and, based on such time exceeding a threshold, deleting the hash entry.
As a result, we agree with Appellants that Kotzur fails to teach or fairly
suggest measuring the time between received packets at the network device,
let alone rejecting the latter packet if it is received within a predetermined
time interval, as claimed. (Br. 5-6.) Thus, we find that the Examiner
improperly relied upon Kotzur to teach or fairly suggest the disputed
limitation.
Moreover, although the Examiner points to multiple columns and line
numbers within Kotzur to teach or fairly suggest the limitations recited in
independent claim 5, we were unable to ascertain the Examiner’s position in
regards to how Kotzur renders independent claim 5 unpatentable and, in
particular, how it teaches the claimed “rejecting” step. Consequently, to
affirm the Examiner on the record before us would require considerable
speculation on our part. We decline to engage in such speculation.
Since Appellants have shown at least one error in the rejection of
independent claim 5, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other
Appeal 2009-007181
Application 10/465,945

9
arguments. It follows that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
concluding that that Kotzur renders independent claim 5 unpatentable.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)—Combination of Kotzur and Bader
Claims 6 and 7
We note that Bader does not cure the note deficiencies in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 5. Consequently, since
dependent claims 6 and 7 also recite the limitation discussed above, we find
that Appellants have also shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims for the reasons set forth in our discussion of independent claim 5.

V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1
and 5 through 7 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 5 through 7
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

Vsh