Ex Parte Mathur et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 201512118987 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2015) 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. 12/118,987 05/12/2008 Sumit Mathur 233138-1/YOD (NBCU:0009) 2159 7590 02/12/2015 Patrick S. Yoder P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER ALI, FARHAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2478 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/12/2015 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 SUMIT MATHUR, RAB MUKRAJ, and DARREN TOME ________________ Appeal 2012-005871 Application 12/118,987 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, ERIC B. CHEN, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–26. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1–6, 9–17, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Agarwal (US 2009/0089438 A1; published Apr. 2, 2009) and Harrang (US 2008/0040501 A1; published Feb. 14, 2008). Ans. 5–16; Fin. Rej. 2–21. Appeal 2012-005871 Application 12/118,987 2 Claims 7, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as obvious over Agarwal, Harrang, and Morgan (US 7,339,942 B2; issued Mar. 4, 2008). Ans. 16–17; Fin. Rej. 21–25. Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as obvious over Agarwal, Harrang, Morgan and Agarwala (US 6,868,087 B1; issued Mar. 15, 2005). Fin. Rej. 25–26. 1 We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “transfer of large data files and the control of such transfer in view of available bandwidth and other considerations.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A data communications control method comprising: receiving a request to transfer a communication, such request communicated by an external client to a gateway connection manager in an interface zone between the external client and an internal network; assigning a transfer rate for the communication; assigning a transfer agent to receive the communication; and receiving the communication in the interface zone if available bandwidth is sufficient for a minimum threshold transfer rate; and transmitting the communication to the internal network. 1 The Final Rejection omits Harrang and Morgan from the formal statement of rejection. Fin. Rej. 25. We correct this omission in our statement of the rejection. Furthermore, we address this ground of rejection notwithstanding the Examiner’s failure to include it in the Answer. Since we reverse the rejection of claims 8 and 19 on the merits, our decision to address the rejection of these claims does not prejudice Appellants. Appeal 2012-005871 Application 12/118,987 3 ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1–6, 9–17, 22, 23, AND 25 OVER AGARWAL AND HARRANG Claims 1–6, 9–17, 23, and 25 The Examiner finds Agarwal and Harrang teach all limitations of claim 1. Ans. 5–8. The Examiner relies on Agarwal’s intelligent lookup service for teaching the recited receiving a request, assigning a transfer agent, and transmitting the communication to the internal network. Ans. 5–6 (citing Agarwal, ¶¶ 16, 37, 41). Appellants argue, among other arguments, that Agarwal does not teach the recited gateway connection manager in an interface zone between the external client and an internal network. App. Br. 7. Appellants further argue that the recited “communication is received into the interface zone and sent from the interface zone to the internal network.” Reply. Br. 2. In the Response to Argument section of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner further maps Agarwal’s service access points (servers) to the recited transfer agents. Ans. 19. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred. According to claim 1, the transfer agent is assigned to receive the communication and the communication is received in the interface zone, and the communication is transmitted (from the interface zone) to the internal network. To the extent a communication received by one of Agarwal’s service access points (servers) is received in the interface zone as required by claim 1, the Examiner has not established that the communication is transmitted from the interface zone to an internal network. Thus, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Agarwal teaches the Appeal 2012-005871 Application 12/118,987 4 recited (claim 1) “transmitting the communication to the internal network.” Although the Examiner explains how Agarwal’s service access point meets the recited transfer agent, we do not see how, and the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how, Agarwal’s transfer agent transmits the communication to the internal network. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or of claims 2–6, 9, 10, and 23, which depend from claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11, which recites “transmitting each of the communications to the internal network;” or of claims 12–17 and 25, which depend from claim 11. Claim 22 The Examiner finds Agarwal and Harrang teach all limitations of claim 22. Ans. 13–16. The Examiner relies on Agarwal’s determining an optimal server for teaching the recited assigning an agent to receive the communication. Ans. 13 (citing Agarwal, ¶ 37). The Examiner relies on Harrang’s minimum segment transmission rate for teaching the recited minimum fixed transmission rate. Ans. 14–15 (citing Harrang, ¶¶ 31, 34, 37, 44). Appellants present the following principal arguments: i. “the ‘intelligent lookup service’ of Agarwal does not assign any ‘agent to receive the requested communication.’ As noted above, and as cited by the examiner, the ‘intelligent lookup service’ determines a ‘set of optimal candidate servers, or an optimal server,’ to satisfy a service request.” App. Br. 11. Appeal 2012-005871 Application 12/118,987 5 ii. The minimum segment transmission rate limit in Harrang is not equivalent to the recited minimum fixed transmission rate. App. Br. 11–12. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Regarding Appellants’ argument (i), we find this argument unpersuasive because Agarwal’s service access point meets the recited agent to receive the communication. By determining an optimal server for satisfaction of a request, Agarwal (¶ 37) assigns an agent to receive the communication. Regarding Appellants’ argument (ii), we find this argument unpersuasive. Harrang (¶ 37) describes the minimum segment transmission rate limit, Rmin, is determined by the sending system 102 based upon two factors. The first factor is file size, Xrem, of that remaining portion of the file 116 that has yet to be sent by the sending system 102 to the receiving system 104. The second factor is the amount of remaining time available to transmit file segments from the sending system 102 to the receiving system 104 between the present time of the determination, Tnow, and the time of the delivery deadline, Td. The Specification does not define “minimum fixed transmission rate” but the Specification (¶ 31) does teach “[t]he transmission rate is maintained at a fixed value because the minimum of that value is needed to sustain the file transfer in view of network delays in the shared bandwidth.” Thus, we see no reason why Harrang’s minimum segment transmission rate, which makes sure the file transfer meets the delivery deadline, does not describe the recited minimum fixed transmission rate (to sustain the file transfer). The Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language is not overbroad or unreasonable when read in light of the Specification, and we see no error in the Examiner’s finding. Appeal 2012-005871 Application 12/118,987 6 We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 22. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 7, 18, 20, 21, 24, AND 26 OVER AGARWAL, HARRANG, AND MORGAN Claims 7, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 26 variously depend from claims 1 and 11. The Examiner does not explain how the teachings of Morgan might remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Agarwal and Harrang as applied to claims 1 and 11. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 26. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 8 AND 9 OVER AGARWAL, HARRANG, MORGAN AND AGARWALA Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not explain how the teachings of Morgan, Agarwala or both together might remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Agarwal and Harrang as applied to claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9. Appeal 2012-005871 Application 12/118,987 7 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 and 23-26 is reversed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 22 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation