Ex Parte JAIN et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201713717111 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/717,111 12/17/2012 Kaustubh JAIN 123639 9631 15683 7590 Qualcomm Inc (DL) c/o DeLizio Law, PLLC 15201 Mason Road Suite 1000-312 Cypress, TX 77433 03/29/2017 EXAMINER PHUNKULH, BOB A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2412 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2017 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): OCPAT_USPTO@QUALCOMM.COM uspto@deliziolaw.com u spto2 @ deliziolaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAUSTUBH JAIN, QIXUE, PEERAPOL TINNAKORNSRISUPHAP, and BRIAN M. BUESKER1 Appeal 2016-007789 Application 13/717,111 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 8—19, 21—26, and 28—31. Claims 7, 20, and 27 have been canceled. App. Br. 28, 30, 32. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-007789 Application 13/717,111 THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to reordering incoming packets from different upstream paths. Spec., Abstract. Independent claims 1 and 12, reproduced below, are illustrative: 1. A method for path switching in a network, the method comprising: receiving, at an interface of a first device in the network, a plurality of packets from a second device; determining that a first packet of the plurality of packets is associated with a first path used before a path update and that a second packet of the plurality of packets is associated with a second path used after the path update; and processing the first packet and the second packet in an order based, at least in part, on the first packet being associated with the first path and the second packet being associated with the second path. 12. A method for communicating via a network, the method comprising: transmitting, via a first path of the network from a first device to a second device, a first packet of a plurality of packets; selecting a second path of the network from the first device to the second device, the second path to replace the first path; transmitting, after transmitting the first packet via the first path, an end-of-stream marker packet via the first path, the end- of-stream marker packet indicative that the first path is being replaced; transmitting, via the second path, a beginning-of-stream marker packet prior to transmitting a second packet of the plurality of packets; and transmitting, via the second path, the second packet. 2 Appeal 2016-007789 Application 13/717,111 THE REJECTIONS Claims 1—4, 6, 8—10, 21—24, 26, and 28—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Endo et al. (US 2009/0016366 Al; published Jan. 15, 2009) (“Endo”). Final Act. 2-5. Claims 5, 12—14, 18, 19, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Endo and Chidambaran et al. (US 2002/0141344 Al; published Oct. 3, 2002) (“Chidambaran”). Final Act. 5—7. Claims 15—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Endo, Chidambaran, and Kano (US 2010/0309777 Al; published Dec. 9, 2010). Final Act. 7. Claims 11 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Endo and Kwon (US 2007/0286140 Al; published Dec. 13, 2007). Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS Claims 1—6, 8—11, 21—26, and 28—31 Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “determining that a first packet of the plurality of packets is associated with a first path used before a path update and that a second packet of the plurality of packets is associated with a second path used after the path update.” The Examiner finds Endo discloses, inter alia, a packet transfer apparatus that receives packets from a first and second route. Final Act. 3 (citing Endo 13, Fig. 1). In particular, the Examiner finds Endo discloses “[a]s shown in figure 1, . . . packets are transmit[ting] over NW0 first then 3 Appeal 2016-007789 Application 13/717,111 switching over to NW1 to transmit the same copy of the packets.” Final Act. 8—9 (citing Endo 1108, Fig. 7); see also Ans. 3^4. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Endo discloses the path update, as claimed. App. Br. 5—7, 9—10; Reply Br. 2-4. We agree with Appellants. In particular, we agree with Appellants “a person of skill in the art would not interpret the description in paragraphs [0089]—[0095] as suggesting that a packet transfer apparatus must ‘switch over’ from NW0 to NW1, or that doing so would comprise a ‘path update.’” App. Br. 9. During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In reAmer. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Figure 3 from Appellants’ Specification is reproduced below: SOURCE PACKET STREAM m PACKETS RECEIVED OUT OF ORDER dm4------ V 350' “Figure 3 is a packet timing diagram illustrating out-of-order packet handling using path switch marker packets.” Spec. 134. Reference number 4 Appeal 2016-007789 Application 13/717,111 300 on the left side of the figure depicts a sequence of packets transmitted from a source packet stream and reference number 301 on the right side depicts the packets are received out of order over two different paths. As illustrated, first plurality of packets 340 chronologically precedes second plurality of packets 350. Id. As further illustrated, first plurality of packets 340’ are received via old path 310 and second plurality of packets 350’ are received via new path 320. Further, Appellants’ Specification, in disclosing processing related to “path update,” refers to earlier packets sent on an old path followed by later packets sent on a new path. See, e.g., Spec. Tflf 19, 21, 23, 27, 31, 42. Accordingly, we find a broadest reasonable interpretation of path update consistent with Appellants’ Specification requires, at least, receiving a first packet only via a first path and receiving a second (sequentially subsequent) packet only via a second path. See App. Br. 3^4 (citing Spec. 29—32, 34—36, Figs. 2, 3). Here, we find the Examiner has failed to adequately explain how, nor are we able to ascertain that, Endo discloses a path update under a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. Specifically, in explaining the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner explains Figure 1 of Endo discloses transmitting packets over a first communication route before “then switching over” to a second communication route to transmit the same copy of packets. Final Act. 8—9 (citing Endo 108, Fig. 7); see also Ans. 3^4. Transmitting and receiving the same packets over both of two paths is not within the scope of the broadest reasonable interpretation of a path update. Endo is directed to a packet transfer apparatus with a protection switching function. Endo 2. Figure 1 of Endo is illustrative and is reproduced below: 5 Appeal 2016-007789 Application 13/717,111 FIG. 1 Figure 1 of Endo illustrates packet transfer apparatus 10A connected to packet transfer apparatus ION through two communication routes 0 (NWO) and 1 (NW1). Endo 146. Upon receiving frame 30 from terminal 70, packet transfer apparatus 10A “copies the frame 30 and sends the frame 30 and its copy to the communication routes 0 NWO and 1 NW1, respectively.” Endo 147. Endo further discloses each frame received from terminal 70 includes a copy flag to signal whether a copy should be made. Endo 1108. Endo’s Figure 1 clearly depicts sending and receiving the same packets (SN:0..SN:3) over both communication paths (NWO and NW1). The Examiner further finds Endo discloses packet transfer apparatus 10N receives the same packet from two communication routes 0 (NWO) and 1 (NW1) at different times. Ans. 4—5 (citing Endo 111). Endo’s use of the two communication paths (NWO and NW1) is always for redundant transmission/reception of the same packets over both paths. Thus, the Examiner has not explained, nor can we discern, that Endo 6 Appeal 2016-007789 Application 13/717,111 performs a path update as we have broadly but reasonably interpreted the term. In view of the above conclusion and on the record before us, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 21, and all dependent claims therefrom. Appellants raise additional issues in the Briefs with respect to independent claims 1 and 21. However, we are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue discussed supra, which is dispositive as to the rejection of all claims. We, therefore, do not reach the additional issues. Claims 12—19 Independent claim 12 similarly recites “selecting a second path of the network from the first device to the second device, the second path to replace the first path.” The Examiner rejects claim 12 for the same reasons as claim 1. Ans. 10 (citing Endo Tflf 10-11, Fig. 1); see also Final Act. 5—6. Appellants’ Specification does not use the term “replace,” although originally filed claim 12 refers to the second path “being a replacement to the first path.” Spec., 24. Similar to claim 1, claim 12 recites sending the first packet over the first path and sending the second packet over the second path. Further, claim 12 recites, after sending the first packet on the first path, sending a marker on the first path indicating that the first path is being replaced. The second packet is then sent over the second path following transmission of the marker on the first path. Thus, under a broad but reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification including originally filed claim 12, we find selecting a second path to replace a first path coupled with the marker transmission, as recited in claim 12, is an 7 Appeal 2016-007789 Application 13/717,111 embodiment of a path update, as discussed supra with respect to claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons as claim 1, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12, and all dependent claims therefrom. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6, 8—19, 21— 26, and 28-31. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation