Ex Parte Lu et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 25, 201410593314 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation