Ex Parte Lakshman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 7, 2013

11147937 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2013)

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.
11/147,937 06/08/2005 Tirunell V. Lakshman Lakshman 43-64-36
(LCNT/1
7977
46363 7590 01/08/2013
WALL & TONG, LLP/
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
25 James Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
CHENG, CHI TANG P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte TIRUNELL V. LAKSHMAN, KRISHAN K. SABNANI,
and THOMAS Y. WOO
_____________

Appeal 2010-005285
Application 11/147,937
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants have filed a paper under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 requesting that
we reconsider our decision of December 11, 2012, wherein, we affirmed the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8.
Appellants contend that:

i) “the Board misapplied the tenet of Ex parte Borden.” Request
for Rehearing 2.

Appeal 2010-005285
Application 11/147,937

2
ii) “the Board misapprehended or overlooked the teachings of the
cited references.” Request for Rehearing 2.

We address the Appellants’ contentions sequentially.

Appellants’ contention i)
Appellants argue that the Board incorrectly applied Ex parte Borden
to the Reply Brief because the Reply Brief responds to the Examiner’s
findings in the Appeal Brief. Request for Rehearing 2-4. We disagree.
The arguments presented in the Reply Brief on pages 2-3, under the
heading “I. The Examiner’s Interpretation of the Prior Art Reference is
Contrary to the Reference’s Explicit Teachings.” were considered but
were not found to be persuasive. The reference in our Opinion (Op. 4) to
pages 3-8 of the Reply Brief is directed to the heading “II. The Examiner’s
Assertion Is Incorrect.” Under heading II (Reply Br. 3-8), Appellants
present new arguments that were not presented prior to the Reply Brief and
were, therefore, not considered. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we
erred in applying Ex parte Borden in our December 11, 2012 Decision.

Appellants’ contention ii)
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Board erred in
agreeing with the Examiner that the cited references teach or suggest private
communication between CEs. Request for Rehearing 4-5. Appellants argue
that Figure 4 of Golla does not teach private communication because, when
communicating across system bus 416, any and all line cards or control
plane cards connected to bus 416 could intercept the communication.
Appeal 2010-005285
Application 11/147,937

3
Request for Rehearing 6. Additionally, Appellants argue that Figure 1 of
Golla does not teach private communication because it contains an inter-
plane updating mechanism 106, which would also make the data accessible
by other devices. Request for Rehearing 6-7. Essentially Appellants are
arguing that private communication only occurs if the data cannot be
accessed by any device other than the two intended devices. Request for
Rehearing 7. We disagree.
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim.
The claim requires private communication between two devices, but does
not state that in order for the communication to be private other devices
cannot share the same communication bus. Additionally, Appellants’
Specification does not provide a specific definition for the term “private.”
Instead, Appellants’ Specification only provides a description of one
embodiment where there are private links between each CE, so that
communication does not need to go through any FEs. Spec. 16. However,
Appellants have failed to provide sufficient evidence or argument to show
why the Examiner’s discussion of Figure 1 of Golla, that shows a private
link between each node in the control plane 102A (Ans. 12-13), is any
different than that which is claimed. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings and are not persuaded that the Board erred in agreeing with the
Examiner that the cited references teach or suggest private communication
between CEs.
CONCLUSION
Appellants’ request for rehearing is granted to the extent that we have
reconsidered our prior decision in light of Appellants’ arguments. We are
Appeal 2010-005285
Application 11/147,937

4
not persuaded of any errors in our prior decision and maintain the rejection
of claims 1-8. Thus, the request for rehearing is DENIED.
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).

REHEARING DENIED

ELD