Ex Parte Limaye et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2012

10284619 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

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.
10/284,619 10/31/2002 Pradeep Shrikrishna Limaye BAY-022 2015
7590 12/13/2012
Wilson & Ham
PMB: 348
2530 Berryessa Road
San Jose, CA 95132
EXAMINER
ZHU, BO HUI ALVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2012 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 PRADEEP SHRIKRISHNA LIMAYE,
SASISEKHARAN RAGURAM, and SANTHANAM SRINIVASAN
____________

Appeal 2010-005471
Application 10/284,619
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005471
Application 10/284,619

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-19. Claim 20 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been
allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A telecommunications system comprising:

a mesh transport network that comprises a plurality of nodes and a
plurality of communications links, wherein said mesh transport network
defines a first address space, wherein each of said plurality of nodes has a
unique address in said first address space and a unique address in at least one
ring network, and wherein each of said plurality of communications links is
associated with at least one ring network; and

a provisioning network that is logically distinct from said mesh
transport network for controlling said plurality of nodes, wherein the
provisioning network is configured to provision a protected service through
both service bandwidth and protection bandwidth in each of at least two
interlocking rings.

Prior Art
Kremer US 5,406,549 Apr. 11, 1995
Al-Salameh US 6,262,820 B1 July 17, 2001
Deboer US 2002/0141334 A1 Oct. 3, 2002

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9-11, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Deboer.
Appeal 2010-005471
Application 10/284,619

3
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Deboer.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Deboer and Kremer.
Claims 4 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Deboer and Al-Salameh.

ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 9-11
According to Appellants, Deboer does not describe “provision[ing] a
protected service through both service bandwidth and protection bandwidth
in each of at least two interlocking rings” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8.
Appellants contend that Deboer allocates protection bandwidth, but not
working bandwidth, in Ring Y for data traffic affected by resource failure 14
in Ring X. Appellants also contend that Deboer does not provision working
bandwidth and protection bandwidth in Ring Y. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br.
7-8.
Appellants’ arguments are inconsistent with Figures 1 and 3A of
Deboer, which show rings X and Y provisioned with both working and
protection bandwidth 8, 10. See ¶ [0033] (cited at Ans. 14) (“Between
matched nodes 4b and 4e, span 6g comprises only working bandwidth 8g,
with no provisioned protection bandwidth 10. Within each of the remaining
spans 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e and 6f both working and protection bandwidth 8, 10
are provisioned in a conventional manner.” (emphasis added)). Appellants’
arguments are also inconsistent with the background section of Deboer,
which discloses that the prior art provisioned fully redundant protection
Appeal 2010-005471
Application 10/284,619

4
bandwidth. See ¶ [0007] (“A disadvantage of the [prior art] network
architecture is that its high reliability is dependent on the provisioning of
fully redundant network resources. This requirement for a 1:1 ratio of
working:protection bandwidth capacity requires network service providers to
install and maintain duplicate sets of network nodes and optical fibers, much
of which remains idle for significant periods of time.”).
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants
have not presented arguments for separate patentability of claims 5, 6, and 9-
11, but rather rely on those presented for claim 1 which we find
unpersuasive.

Section 102 rejection of claims 13-16
Appellants contend that Deboer does not describe “a fault notification
network that is logically distinct from said mesh transport network” as
recited in claim 13. Reply Br. 8-9.1 According to Appellants, Deboer
describes a network with working bandwidth and protection bandwidth, and
the protection bandwidth can transport a search stack between nodes. Reply
Br. 9. Appellants contend that the path of the search stack described by
Deboer is the same path as data payload traffic; therefore, the logical path of
the search stack is not different from the logical path of the payload data
(i.e., logically distinct from the logical path of the mesh transport network).
Reply Br. 10.
Because the scope of claim 13 does not exclude the fault notification
network from transporting payload traffic, Appellants’ argument is not

1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants’ also raised this contention in the
arguments regarding claim 21, now allowed. App. Br. 12-13.
Appeal 2010-005471
Application 10/284,619

5
commensurate with the scope of claim 13. Claim 13 recites that the fault
notification network is logically distinct from a mesh transport network.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to show that
the working bandwidth and protection bandwidth described by Deboer (for
example, in paragraphs 7, 33, and 36-37) are not logically distinct networks
within the meaning of claim 13. Appellants have also not provided a
definition of fault notification network that excludes the protection path
described by Deboer.
We sustain the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appellants have not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims
14-16 which fall with claim 13.

Section 103 rejection of claim 4
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claim 4, but instead rely on those presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 15-16)
which we find unpersuasive.

Section 103 rejection of claim 12
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claim 12, but instead rely on those presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 15) which
we find unpersuasive.

Section 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, and 8
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 2, 3, 7, and 8, but rely on those presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 15)
which we find unpersuasive.
Appeal 2010-005471
Application 10/284,619

6

Section 103 rejection of claims 17 and 19
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 17 and 19, but rely on those presented for claim 13 (App. Br. 15)
which we find unpersuasive.

Section 103 rejection of claim 18
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claim 18, but rely on those presented for claim 13 (App. Br. 16) which we
find unpersuasive.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9-11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Deboer is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Deboer is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Deboer and Kremer is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 4 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Deboer and Al-Salameh 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

Appeal 2010-005471
Application 10/284,619

7

babc