Ex Parte Koch et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2003

09271410 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte EDWARD L. KOCH, JEFFREY WARREN SCOTT,
and THOMAS IAN ARMITAGE
____________
Appeal No. 2001-1876
Application No. 09/271,410
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-15, which are all the claims in the application.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2001-1876
Application No. 09/271,410
-2-
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to acknowledgment of receipt of messages in network
protocols. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for acknowledgment of receipt of a message in a network, the
network including a plurality of nodes, comprising the steps of:
(a) sending a message from a first node of the plurality of nodes destined
for a second node of the plurality of nodes;
(b) setting a timer for the first node for receipt of an acknowledgment
packet from the second node;
(c) determining if a wait acknowledge packet is received by the first node,
wherein the wait acknowledge packet notifies the first node that the message
has been sent to a next hop; and
(d) resetting the timer if the wait acknowledge packet is received by the
first node.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Chen et al. (Chen) 4,970,714 Nov. 13, 1990
Ohsawa 5,519,699 May 21, 1996
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Chen and Ohsawa.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 10) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 16) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No.
15) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 17) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims
which stand rejected.
Appeal No. 2001-1876
Application No. 09/271,410
1 According to appellants’ disclosure (page 2), a “hop” is the route from a subnet to a router.
-3-
OPINION
In response to the section 103 rejection, appellants argue, inter alia, that
Ohsawa does not teach the limitations attributed to the reference. Appellants contend
that the sending terminal is not notified that data has been forwarded to the next hop.1
(Brief at 6-7.)
The examiner responds (Answer at 10-11) by pointing to Figure 2 of Ohsawa
and portions of columns 4, 5, and 6 of the reference. According to the examiner, the
reference shows that a notification is sent from one router to a previous router that data
has been forwarded to the next router because, at each of the routers, “data that had
been stored on its memory was erased in response to an ACK from the following node.”
(Id. at ¶ bridging pp. 10-11.) We note that the referenced sections of Ohsawa describe
a first, second, and third embodiment of the invention. The Answer appears to rely in
particular on the second embodiment (e.g., col. 4, ll. 20-33).
In any event, Ohsawa describes sending an acknowledgment signal indicating
confirmation of reception of data or that data has been transferred. One might infer, in
retrospect, that data had been forwarded to a “next hop” at some point in transfer.
However, we do not find any teaching in Ohsawa having the specificity required by the
claims before us. See, e.g., In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371, 55 USPQ2d 1313,
1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[P]articular findings must be made as to the reason the skilled
Appeal No. 2001-1876
Application No. 09/271,410
-4-
artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these
components for combination in the manner claimed.”).
Moreover, even if Ohsawa were to teach a “wait acknowledge packet” as
claimed, we agree with appellants that the rejection fails to show how the combination
of Chen and Ohsawa would result in the invention. The rejection (Answer at 4) appears
to attribute a “wait acknowledge packet” to Chen, but then asserts that the reference
does not disclose a wait acknowledge packet, or at least the details of the packet as
claimed. The claims, however, require (as set forth by claim 1) “setting a timer for the
first node for receipt of an acknowledgment packet from the second node” and
“resetting the timer if the wait acknowledge packet is received by the first node.” In the
statement of the rejection, however, the “resetting” of the timer is deemed to be taught
by Chen, although the rejection apparently turns to Ohsawa for teaching the details of
the “wait acknowledge packet.” We thus do not see how the references may be
combined such that a timer is set for receipt of an acknowledgment packet from a
second node, but reset upon reception of a packet having claimed functions distinct
from the acknowledgment packet -- i.e., reception of a wait acknowledge packet.
We thus conclude that the rejection fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. We do not sustain the rejection of claims
1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Ohsawa.
Appeal No. 2001-1876
Application No. 09/271,410
-5-
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-1876
Application No. 09/271,410
-6-
JOSEPH A SAWYER JR
SAWYER & ASSOCIATES
PO BOX 51418
PALO ALTO, CA 94303