Ex Parte Kakadia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2016

13048350 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/048,350 03/15/2011
25537 7590 06/06/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Deepak KAKADIA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20100890 8508
EXAMINER
SHIH, ALBERT K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEEP AK KAKADIA and LALIT R. KOTECHA
Appeal2015-002055
Application 13/048,350
Technology Center 2400
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appeal2015-002055
Application 13/048,350
The present invention relates to adaptive quality of service based on
application latency requirements. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is
exemplary:
1. A method implemented by one or more computing devices,
compnsmg:
receiving, by one of the one or more computing devices and from a
plurality of network devices, packet monitoring data for subscriber
application traffic;
calculating, by one of the one or more computing devices and based
on the packet monitoring data, timing latencies for a particular subscriber
flow;
obtaining, by one of the one or more computing devices, Quality of
Service (QoS) timing specifications for the particular subscriber flow;
determining, by one of the one or more computing devices, that there
is congestion within the particular subscriber flow based on the timing
latencies for the particular subscriber flow and the QoS timing
specifications;
identifying, by one of the one or more computing devices and when
the congestion is detected, at least one of the plurality of network devices
that is a source of the congestion; and
signaling, by one of the one or more computing devices and to the at
least one of the plurality of network devices, an indication to modify QoS
parameters for the particular subscriber flow.
Sirotkin
Grayson
References and Rejections
US 2009/0010259 Al
US 2012/0207022 Al
Jan. 8,2009
Aug. 16, 2012
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grayson.
2
Appeal2015-002055
Application 13/048,350
Claims 9, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Grayson and Sirotkin.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Grayson teaches "identifying,
at least one of the plurality of network devices that is a source of the
congestion; and signaling, by one of the one or more computing devices and
to the at least one of the plurality of network devices, an indication to modifj;
QoS parameters for the particular subscriber flow," as recited in
independent claim 1 (emphases added). 1
The Examiner maps the claimed "at least one of the plurality of
network devices [that is a source of the congestion]" to Grayson's eNB of
Figure 4. See Ans. 39--40. 2 The Examiner finds:
signaling, by one of the one or more computing devices and to
the at least one of the plurality of network devices, an indication
to modify QoS parameters for the particular subscriber flow
(Grayson, FIG. 1 and [0022-0023] "The Agg-PE can then
aggregate bandwidth anomalies from multiple radio links into
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
2 Alternatively and under the same analysis, the Examiner maps the claimed
"at least one of the plurality of network devices [that is a source of the
congestion]" to Grayson's RADIO of Figure 3. See Ans. 39--40. For similar
reasons discussed in our analysis, the cited Grayson portions do not teach
signaling to RADIO "an indication to modify QoS parameters," as required
by the claim.
3
Appeal2015-002055
Application 13/048,350
QoS control signals, and send the QoS control signals
(including bandwidth information) to an AGW. The AGW may
then use the QoS information to optionally modifj; QoS
characteristics of subscribers supported by the AGW" and
"signaling may be used to allow a radio ... to signal the Agg-PE
device that it is operating using constrained bandwidth"; and
see aforementioned FIG. 4 and corresponding paragraph of
description, such as [0046] which at least described that the
modified QoS is translated and transmitted further from AGW
to network device, eNB via 470a/470b, and so at least network
device eNB is being signaled; Please note the same analysis can
be done via FIG. 3 with RADIO, in which congestion of
RADIO is identified and AGW may transmit translated QoS
modification to RADIO via 370a/370b ).
Ans. 39-40 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue the cited Grayson portions teach signaling, to
SGW425 and SGW 430-not eNB-"an indication to modify QoS
parameters for the particular subscriber flow." See App. Br. 13-14. Reply
Br. 4--5.
Grayson's paragraphs 22 and 23 state the following (emphases
added):
[0022] ... The AggPE can then aggregate bandwidth anomalies
from multiple radio links into QoS control signals, and send the
QoS control signals (including bandwidth information) to
anAGW. Note that the term 'QoS control signal' is a broad
term that encompasses any type of information that may be
relevant to QoS (either at a link level, at a network device level,
at a network level more generally, etc.). Hence, any data
segment or information relevant to QoS can be sent as a QoS
control signal ....
[0023] The AGW may then use the QoS information to
optionally modifj; QoS characteristics of subscribers supported
by the AGW. For example, the AGW may be operable to
determine which subscribers are impacted by congestion on a
4
Appeal2015-002055
Application 13/048,350
microwave link to compare the guaranteed bit rate (GBR)
bandwidth of those subscribers. If the GBR total bandwidth of
such subscribers exceeds the microwave bandwidth, the AGW is
then operable to decrease the cumulative GBR bandwidth so
that subscribers can receive correct packet handling.
Consistent with the above descriptions, Grayson's paragraph 46 states
"SGW 425 and SGW 430 may then translate the QoS control signals and
modifj; GBR [guaranteed bit rate] flows at 470a-b, respectively (e.g., via an
Sl-AP interface)" (emphases added). Therefore, the cited Grayson portions
teach modifying the QoS parameters at SGW 425 and SGW 430-not eNB.
As a result, the Examiner has not shown the cited Grayson portions teach
signaling to eNB-the device the Examiner cites as the source of the
congestion-"an indication to modify QoS parameters," as required by the
claim.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent
claims 2-9.
For similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 10 and 18, which recite limitations similar to the
disputed claim limitation, and dependent claims 11-17 and 19-20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
5