Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2017

12943402 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2017)

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.
12/943,402 11/10/2010 Gordon Y ong LI 2875.3420002 3605
49579 7590 01/19/2017
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
STILTNER, WEIWEI YE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/19/2017 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):
e-office @ skgf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GORDON YONG LI, VICTOR T. HOU, and XUEMIN CHEN
Appeal 2014-007975
Application 12/943,402
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, NABEEL U. KHAN, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Broadcom Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-007975
Application 12/943,402
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to Quality of Service (QoS)
setup and more specifically to dynamic QoS setup over wired and wireless
networks. Spec. 12.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method to setup Quality of Service (QoS) parameters
over a wireless network and over a wired network, wherein a
request to setup the QoS parameters is initiated by a wireless
device, comprising:
receiving a first message from the wireless device,
wherein the first message includes a first set of QoS parameters
requested by the wireless device;
determining a second set of QoS parameters for
transmission over the wired network corresponding to the first
set of QoS parameters;
transmitting a second message to a wired device including
the second set of QoS parameters;
receiving a response to the second message from the wired
device that indicates whether the second set of QoS parameters
was accepted by the wired device; and
transmitting a response to the first message, based on the
response to the second message, to the wireless device indicating
whether the first set of QoS parameters are acceptable.
References and Rejections
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 21, 23, 24, and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Corliano (US 2010/0172239 Al,
July 8, 2010) and Kaftan (US 2007/0286138 Al, Dec. 13, 2007).
2
Appeal 2014-007975
Application 12/943,402
2. Claims 11 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Corliano and Nandagopalan (US 2003/0093526 Al,
May 15,2003).
3. Claims 13, 14, 17, 33, 34, and 36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Corliano, Nandagopalan, and
Kaftan.
4. Claims 2 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Corliano, Kaftan, and Zheng (US 2009/0285176 Al,
Nov. 19, 2009).
5. Claims 12 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Corliano, Nandagopalan, and Zheng.
6. Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, and 27—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Corliano, Kaftan, and Lee (US 2007/0025297
Al, Feb. 1,2007).
7. Claims 15, 18, 19, 37, 39, and 40 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Corliano, Nandagopalan, and Lee.
8. Claims 16 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Corliano, Nandagopalan, Kaftan, and Lee.
9. Claims 10 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Corliano, Kaftan, and Nilsson (US 2010/0135264 Al,
June 3, 2010).
10. Claims 20 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Corliano, Nandagopalan, and Nilsson.
11. Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Corliano, Kaftan, and Rune (US 2011/0096749 Al,
Apr. 28, 2011).
3
Appeal 2014-007975
Application 12/943,402
ANALYSIS
I. Claim 1
A. Whether Corliano Teaches or Suggests “transmitting a second
message to a wired device including the second set of QoS
parameters ”
Appellants argue “the applied references fail to teach or suggest
transmitting a second message to a wired device including the second set of
QoS parameters.” App. Br. 20. In particular, Appellants argue “there is no
communication by translator 40 of a second set of parameters
corresponding to the first set of parameters to the wired device as recited in
claim 1.” Id. at 20-21. Instead, Appellants argue, “the translator 40
[returns] these parameters to the requesting device and not to the ‘wired
device’ as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 21.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds
Corliano teaches or suggests “transmitting a second message to a device of
the second network including the second set of QoS parameters,” as recited
in claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing Corliano ^fl[ 65, 127—132 136, 166); see also
Ans. 6 (citing Corliano 1152). In particular, the Examiner finds Corliano
discloses a translator which receives QoS requests, translates these requests
into a form required by the data transport network, and transmits the
translated QoS parameters to the data transport network. Final Act. 3 (citing
Corliano 1136); Ans. 5—6 (citing Corliano ^fl[ 17, 22, 128, 152). The
Examiner finds “[t]he translated QoS requirements by the QoS translator 40
in Corliano corresponds to the claimed ‘the second set of parameters.’” Ans.
5. With regard to transmitting the QoS parameters, the Examiner cites
pseudo-code representing the admission control check function where the
4
Appeal 2014-007975
Application 12/943,402
translator transmits a QoS description including the QoS parameters to the
data transport network and receives a label switched path (“LSP”) that
closely matches the QoS characteristics found in the QoS description. Ans.
6 (citing Corliano 1152). And finally, the Examiner acknowledges that
Corliano does not disclose that the first and second network are wireless and
wired networks, but relies on Kaftan for disclosing setting up QoS in a
wireless network and wired network and for the teaching that the second
device is a wired device. Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 7.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error in these findings.
Specifically, Appellants’ argument that Corliano’s translator does not send a
second set of parameters to a wired device, but rather sends the parameters
back to the receiving device, does not address the Examiner’s findings
regarding the translator transmitting a QoS description to the data transport
network as part of querying for an LSP that matches the QoS description.
Ans. 6 (citing Corliano 1152). Appellants address only the portion of the
Examiner’s findings where Corliano’s translator returns an LSP or VC that
matches the QoS characteristics, arguing that these parameters are returned
to the requesting device (see Reply Br. 5), but do not address the Examiner’s
findings regarding the transmission of the QoS characteristics themselves to
the data transport network. Further, to the extent Appellants argue that the
translated set of parameters are not sent to a wired device, this argument
attacks the references individually and does not address the fact that the
Examiner relies upon Kaftan to teach a wired device. See Final Act. 6—7;
Ans. 7.
5
Appeal 2014-007975
Application 12/943,402
B. Whether Corliano Teaches or Suggests “receiving a response
to the second message from the wired device that indicates
whether the second set of QoS parameters was accepted by the
wired device ”
Appellants further argue “[t]he applied references fail to teach or
suggest receiving a response to the second message from the wired device
that indicates whether the second set of QoS parameters was accepted by the
wired device.” App. Br. 24. Specifically, Appellants argue “Corliano
describes whether the requested QoS was granted (see paragraph [0131] of
Corliano) and does not describe whether the second set of parameters that
are mapped corresponding to the first set of parameters are accepted or
rejected.” Id.', see also Reply Br. 7. According to Appellants, “[t]his is
because Corliano never calculates the second set of parameters.” Reply Br.
7. In other words, Appellants argue that Corliano’s disclosure of granting
the requested QoS is, at best, a response to the first set of QoS parameters,
not to a second set of parameters.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments for largely the same
reasons as explained above. The Examiner finds Corliano’s translator
receives a request for QoS and translates it into a transport specific QoS
request. Final Act. 3 (citing Corliano 1136); Ans. 5—6 (citing Corliano
11 17, 22, 128, 152). The Examiner further finds this translated request is
transmitted to the data transport network (Ans. 6 (citing Corliano 1152)),
and that “[t]he device in the data transport network 20, which performs the
network’s MPLS specific function, provides a response to the translator 40
indicating whether the second set of QoS parameters was accepted by
network” (Ans. 9). Thus, the Examiner has provided sufficient evidence to
show that Corliano does calculate a second set of parameters and the
6
Appeal 2014-007975
Application 12/943,402
acceptance of the QoS request is in response to this second set of QoS
parameters. Appellants have therefore, not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
C. Whether the Examiner’s Conclusion of Obviousness is Based
on Hindsight Reconstruction
Appellants argue
the Corliani and Kaftan references have not recognized the
problem of a lack of methods and system to setup Quality of
Service (QoS) parameters over a wireless network and over a
wired network. Instead, the Examiner relies on the problem
identified by the inventors to allege that the claims are obvious
which is improper hindsight reconstruction.
App. Br. 27.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner provides a
reason for combining Corliano and Kaftan, finding that “it would allow
communication over a communication system having both a wired and a
wireless network.” Final Act. 7 (citing Corliano 1166; Kaftan 114).
Corliano specifically states “the benefits of coordination of admission
control requests and responses are obtained, but with the added advantage
that end to end QoS descriptions can be mapped onto technology specific
QoS architectures.” Corliano 1166. The Examiner notes, “Corliano’s main
disclosure is to coordinate QoS requests among multiple network domains,
such that the originating requester does not need to have detailed knowledge
of formats of QoS requests in the downstream traffic domains.” Ans. 11.
The Examiner further notes “Kaftan is cited to remedy the minor deficiency
that the originating and the receiving network domains can be wireless and
wired networks.” Id.
7
Appeal 2014-007975
Application 12/943,402
In other words, Corliano itself is directed to allowing QoS requests to
propagate across different networks and Kaftan is relied upon to show that
some of these networks may be wireless and wired networks. These
teachings stem directly from the cited references themselves, not the
Appellants’ Specification. Thus, we do not agree the Examiner engaged in
hindsight reconstruction in combining Corliano and Kaftan.
D. Failure to Consider All Claim Features and Legal and Factual
Deficiency in Examiner’s Findings
Appellants argue that the applied references fail to teach or suggest
each and every claimed feature of the independent claims, relying on the
arguments addressed above. App. Br. 27. Appellants further argue “the
Examiner has provided no required rational underpinning for these
conclusory statements [that it would be obvious to combine the applied
references], which appear to improperly go beyond the scope of the cited
reference, and rely on speculation, conjecture, and hindsight.” App. Br. 28.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments which are largely the same
as those addressed above. Further, we find the Examiner’s reason for
combining Corliano and Kaftan, namely that the combination “would allow
communication over a communication system having both a wired network
and a wireless network” (Final Act. 7) both rational and supported by the
references themselves, rather than the product of hindsight reconstruction.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and of
claims 3, 4, 7, 21, 23, 24, and 26, which were argued together as a group.
See App. Br. 20—29.
8
Appeal 2014-007975
Application 12/943,402
II. Claims 11 and 31
Appellants argue for separate patentability of claim 11 but rely on the
same arguments made with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 29 (“As described
above, the Corliano reference fails to teach a second message that includes a
second set of QoS parameters.”). We find Appellants’ arguments
unpersuasive for the same reasons as those explained above with respect to
claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 and
claim 31, which were argued together as a group. See App. Br. 29.
III. Claim 6
Appellants take issue with the Examiner relying on Kaftan to teach
that the second set of parameters are DOCSIS parameters while relying on
Lee to teach that the first set of parameters are IEEE 802.11(e) TSpec
parameters. App. Br. 30. Appellants argue “[t]he Office Action is just
picking and choosing features in alternate references where missing in
primary references in order to piece together a deficient rejection.” Id.
According to Appellants, “[tjhere is a logical leap between the teachings of
Corliano, Kaftan, and Lee which amounts to hindsight reconstruction using
the Appellant’s claimed embodiments as a template.” Id.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As explained above,
the Examiner has provided a rational reason to support the conclusion of
obviousness, namely that Corliano itself explicitly addresses the problem of
end to end QoS descriptions across different network domains involving
different technologies and provides a solution where these QoS descriptions
can be mapped onto technology specific QoS architectures. Final Act. 7
9
Appeal 2014-007975
Application 12/943,402
(citing Corliano 1166). Kaftan and Lee are relied upon as providing two
examples of these technology specific QoS architectures (wired and wireless
networks using DOCSIS and 802.11(e) parameters) to which Corliano’s
teachings can be applied. Thus, we find the Examiner’s use of Kaftan and
Lee is appropriate and not an application of hindsight reconstruction.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 and of
claims 16, 28, and 38, which were argued together as a group. See App. Br.
30-31.
IV. Claims 2. 5. 8-10. 12-15. 17-20. 22-27. 29. 30. 32-37. and 39-41
Appellants do not argue for separate patentability of dependent claims
2, 5, 8-10, 12-15, 17-20, 22-27, 29, 30, 32-37, and 39-41, relying on
arguments made for their respective independent claims. Because we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 11,21, and 31, we
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—41 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
10