Ex Parte Kaippallimalil et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2014

11531551 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/531,551 09/13/2006 John Kaippallimalil 4194-01600 1398
89394 7590 04/29/2014
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
EXAMINER
MANSOURY, NOURALI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2475
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2014 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 JOHN KAIPPALLIMALIL, YOUNG LEE, and LINDA DUNBAR
____________________

Appeal 2011-0134531
Application 11/531,551
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Futurewei Technologies, Inc., a corporation
owned at least in part by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (App Br. 4.)
Appeal 2011-013453
Application 11/531,551

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 14-16, and 18-22. Claims 2, 5, 13,
and 17 have been canceled. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for preserving the routing
order of data packets transmitted between a plurality of carrier networks and
a client location. Spec. [0004]. In particular, upon receiving from a client a
data stream containing the data packets, a processor (112) establishes a first
virtual connection (24) via a first pseudo wire customer edge (PW-CE14)
with a second PW-CE (20) through a first network (16). Further, the
processor (112) establishes a second virtual connection (26) between the
first PWCE (14) and the second PW-CE (20) through a second network (18).
Subsequently, the processor selects one of the two virtual connections to
transport the data packets. Spec. [0032]-[0034], figs. 1, 2, 4.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A telecommunications network component comprising:
a processor coupled to a memory and configured to:
receive a data stream comprising a plurality of data packets;

establish a first virtual connection with a destination through a
first network, but not through a second network;
Appeal 2011-013453
Application 11/531,551

3
establish a second virtual connection with the destination
through the second network, but not through the first network;

select either the first virtual connection or the second virtual
connection to transport the data stream; and

configure the data packets for transportation to the destination
over the selected virtual connection;

wherein the data packets follow the selected virtual connection
so long as a rerouting condition is not detected,

wherein each virtual connection is a pseudo-wire,

wherein configuring the data packets comprises encapsulating
at least some of the packets with a header compatible with
Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), Frame Relay, Ethernet, Internet
Protocol (IP), Synchronous Optical Network (SONET), or
Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH),

wherein each virtual connection extends from a first customer
edge to a second customer edge, and

wherein the first customer edge and the second customer edge
are each part of a central office or a client network.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Rabie US 2006/0002370 A1 Jan. 5, 2006

Booth US 2006/0285500 A1 Dec. 21, 2006
(filed Jun. 15, 2005)

Vercellone US 2008/0316914 A1 Dec. 25, 2008
(filed Jul. 29, 2004)

Appeal 2011-013453
Application 11/531,551

4
Rejection on Appeal2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 14-16, and 18-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rabie,
Vercellone, and Booth.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 9-37.3

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of Rabie, Vercellone, and Booth teaches or suggests
each virtual connection extending from a first customer edge to a second
customer edge, as recited in claim 1?

Appellants argue the proffered combination does not teach or suggest
the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 13-16. According to
Appellants, Rabie discloses establishing virtual connections between
separate customer edges (CEs) and provider edges (PEs), as opposed to
establishing the connections between CEs. App. Br. 13-15. Similarly,

2 The Examiner withdrew the indefiniteness rejection previously entered
against claim 21. Ans. 11.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 22, 2011), the Answer (mailed June
17, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision
only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other
arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-013453
Application 11/531,551

5
Appellants argue Booth discloses pseudo-wires that extend between two
PEs, and not between two CEs. Id. at 15-16.
In response, the Examiner finds Rabie’s disclosure of virtual
connections between two CEs through a network having two PEs teaches the
disputed limitations. Ans. 12.
On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and
ultimate conclusion of obviousness.

As depicted in Figure 27 above, Rabie discloses a virtual connection
between a first CE router (2704A) and a second CE router (2704B) via a
provider network (2708) including two PE nodes (2708A, 2708B). While
the connection between the two CEs passes through the two PEs in the
provider network, we find nothing in the claim that precludes such
connection. We are therefore satisfied that the disclosed virtual link
connects the two CEs through the provider network thereby extending from
the first CE and the second CE. It follows Appellants have not shown error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2011-013453
Application 11/531,551

6
Regarding the rejection of claims 12 and 16, Appellants argue the
combination of Rabie, Vercellone, and Booth does not teach or suggest each
of a plurality of pseudo wires extending from a first CE to a second CE as a
single pseudo wire. According to Appellants, Rabie discloses three separate
connections between the CEs as opposed to a single virtual connection. App.
Br. 17-21. We do not agree with Appellants. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that while Rabie discloses a plurality of virtual
connections between the CEs, the virtual connections constitute a single path
through which the data packets are communicated because data packets can
be transmitted between the CEs. Ans. 12. We further agree with the
Examiner that Vercellone’s alternate teaching of a single wire extending
between two sites, each of which is connected to a network (Vercellone Fig.
2) would reinforce Rabie’s disclosure to combine the three virtual
connections into a single one to transmit data packets between the CEs.
Ans. 9. Therefore, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 12 and 16.
Regarding the rejection of claim 3, we find unpersuasive Appellants’
argument that the proffered combination of references does not teach a data
stream containing order specific data. App. Br. 21-22. While Appellants
have reiterated the Examiner’s finding, Appellants have failed to compare
and contrast the cited teachings with the disputed limitations to thereby
showcase discrepancies therein. Further, because Appellants have failed to
address the additional findings made by the Examiner in the Answer in
support of the rejection (Ans. 12), Appellants have failed to show error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Appeal 2011-013453
Application 11/531,551

7
Regarding the rejection of claims 4, 6-11, 14,15, and 18-22, to the
extent Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments
or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1, 3, 12, and 16 above, claims 4, 6-11,
14, 15, and 18-22 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Further,
to the extent Appellants have raised additional arguments for patentability of
claims 4, 6-11, 14, 15, and 18-22 (App. Br. 22-36), we find the Examiner
has rebutted in the Answer each one of those arguments by a preponderance
of the evidence. (Ans. 13-16.) Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings
and underlying reasoning incorporated herein by reference. Consequently,
we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6-11, 14, 15, and
18-22.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-12, 14-16, and
18-22 as set forth above.
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

tj