Ex Parte Lu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2014

10593314 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2014)

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.
10/593,314 04/17/2007 Chaogang Lu 4202-02900 7532
97698 7590 04/25/2014
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
EXAMINER
HUSSAIN, FARRUKH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2014 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 CHAOGANG LU, WEI FU, XINGYUE QUAN,
XIAODONG LI, and JIANFEI HE
____________________

Appeal 2011-012396
Application 10/593,314
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: JAMES P. CALVE, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012396
Application 10/593,314

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Chaogang Lu et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method for binding a work label switching path
(LSP) with a protection LSP, comprising:
a Path Switching Label Switching Router (PSL)
transmitting a first message which comprises a binding
information to a Path Merging Label Switching Router (PML)
to request for creating the protection LSP of the work LSP;
the PML router assigning a label for the protection LSP
based on the first message, and returning a second message
which comprises the binding information;
upon receiving the second message, the PSL router
binding the work LSP with the protection LSP according to the
binding information, and transmitting a notification message
which comprises the binding information to the PML switched
router; and
the PML router binding the work LSP with the protection
LSP according to the binding information in the notification
message,
wherein the binding information comprises an identifier
of the work LSP, a type of the LSP, and a protection mode, and
wherein the PSL and PML are label edge routers.

Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Jain US 2002/0116669 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Appeal 2011-012396
Application 10/593,314

3
Lewis US 2004/0004955 A1 Jan. 8, 2004
Owens US 7,315,510 B1 Jan. 1, 2008
Rejection
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lewis, Jain, and Owens. Ans. 4.

OPINION
Independent claims 1 and 3 each recite the binding information
comprising a work LSP identifier, an LSP type, and a protection mode.
The Examiner finds that Lewis teaches the method of claim 1, but not
binding information to a PML router “to request for creating” a protection
LSP for the work LSP. Ans. 5.1 The Examiner finds, however, that Jain
teaches binding information to a PML router “to request for creating” a
protection LSP for the work LSP. Id.
The Examiner concludes that it would have obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Lewis with
Jain to “utilize the protection LSP feature within the transmitting a first
message which comprises information to a [PML] Router taught by Lewis.
The motivation for this would have been to avoid failed network nodes as
well as failed network links.” Id. at 5-6.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Lewis and Jain fails to
explicitly teach returning a second message comprising binding information,
upon receiving the second message, the PSL router binding the work LSP

1 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider the
clarity, in claims 1 and 3, of the terminology “to request for creating the
protection LSP of the work LSP.”
Appeal 2011-012396
Application 10/593,314

4
with the protection LSP according to the binding information and
transmitting a notification message that comprises the binding information to
the PML router, the PML router assigning a label for the protection LSP
based on the first message and binding the work LSP with the protection
LSP according to the binding information in the notification message, the
binding information comprising an identifier of the work LSP, a type of the
LSP, and a protection mode. Id. at 6.
The Examiner finds, however, that Owens teaches these limitations in
maintaining a binding between outgoing labels specifying the working path
and the protection/recovery path, and exchanging label binding information
comprising an identifier of the work LSP, a type of the LSP, and a protection
mode. Id. at 6-7.
The Examiner concludes that it would have obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine Owens with
Lewis and Jain to utilize a binding information exchange when transmitting
a first message to a PML router, “[t]he motivation for this would have been
to enable[] the switchover to the recovery path upon the receipt of a
protection switch trigger (See Owen, column 11, lines 1-11).” Id. at 7.
Appellants argue that Owens discloses an LSP that requires signaling
between a protection switch (e.g., a router) and a destination switch (e.g.,
another router), but fails to teach or suggest that the message comprises an
LSP type. App. Br. 19-22, Reply Br. 16.
The Examiner responds by finding that Lewis teaches first, second,
and notification messages, and then pointing to column 9, lines 40-52 of
Owens, which teach a type of LSP in suggesting to “treat each label
switched path (LSP) independently, and require signaling between a
Appeal 2011-012396
Application 10/593,314

5
protection switch element (type) and a destination switch (type) individually
for each LSP.” Ans. 22. We do not agree that the cited text of Owens, even
if combined with Lewis and Jain, teaches the claimed binding information
comprising a type of the LSP. Owens’ protection and destination switches
are not LSP types and are not disclosed to identify an LSP type. We
therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because the Examiner’s finding is not supported by a
preponderance of evidence.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED

mls