Ex Parte Meyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2014

11885219 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HANNES MEYER, KLAUS-PETER SCHWANK,
JOACHIM SEIFERT, and RICHARD VIERTHALER
____________

Appeal 2012-003139
Application 11/885,2191
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, STEPHEN C. SIU, and STANLEY M.
WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 7–15.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft.
2 Claims 1–6 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2012-003139
Application 11/885,219

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is a method for reducing data packet losses on
updating of an address table. The address table comprises allocation of
computer addresses which are valid in the local network to computer
addresses valid in the Internet for transmission of data packets. An address
allocation is erased from the address table after expiration of a validity timer.
Address allocation is again inserted in the address table when a data packet
is transmitted to an internet-valid address of a computer in the local network.
During updating of the address allocation, data packets for transmission are
buffered in a buffer memory. The size of the buffer memory is configured
corresponding to the expected load of the local network (Abstract).
Independent claim 7, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
7. A method for reduction of data packet losses on updating an address
table, comprising:
receiving a data packet having an Internet address for a computer
for which the data packet is to be sent;
updating an address table stored in a computer of a local network;
the address table updated with an assignment of a computer addresses
valid in a local network to the Internet address, the update in response
to the address table not having an assignment for the Internet address;
deleting the address assignment after a validity timer has timed
out; and
storing the data packet to be sent in a buffer during the
updating of the address assignment, a size of the buffer
configured in accordance with the expected utilization of the
local network based on a number of data packets expected to be
sent to the Internet address.

Appeal 2012-003139
Application 11/885,219

3
REFERENCES
Dahlgren US 5,784,003 July 21, 1998
Banks US 6,747,979 B1 June 8, 2004
Kadambi US 6,804,194 B1 Oct. 12, 2004
REJECTIONS
Claims 7–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Banks in view of Kadambi and Dahlgren.

ISSUES
Appellants argue that Banks fails to teach or suggest that datagrams
are stored during updating of the address assignment (App. Br. 7).
Appellants further contend that Kadambi fails to disclose that the size of its
buffer is configured, let alone configured in accordance with the expected
utilization of the local network (App. Br. 8–9). Appellants assert that
Dahlgren also fails to teach or suggest configuring the size of its buffer,
specifically based on a number of data packets expected to be sent to the
Internet address (App. Br. 9).
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does Banks disclose storing the data packet to be sent in a buffer
during the updating of the address assignment?
2. Does Kadambi disclose buffer size configured in accordance with
the expected utilization of the local network?
3. Does Dahlgren disclose buffer size configured based on a number
of data packets expected to be sent to the Internet address?

Appeal 2012-003139
Application 11/885,219

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims.
We do not agree with Appellants that Banks does not disclose storing
a data packet during updating of the address assignment (App. Br. 7). We
agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 9–10) that Banks discloses:
if an IP datagram with an IP address for which the memory has no
corresponding data link layer address or port identifier is received,
a queue is provided in the memory to cache the IP datagram while
the means for discovering the corresponding port identifier and
data link address . . . discovers the corresponding data link layer
address and port identifier for the target IP address . . .
(col. 6, l. 67 – col. 7, l. 6).
Appellants’ assertions concerning Kadambi are also insufficient to
show Examiner error (see App. Br. 8). We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Kadambi’s class of service (COS) priority queues within FIFO
132 may be programmed to have a minimum and a maximum bandwidth
value (Ans. 5; Kadambi col. 31, ll. 15–24). We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that this bandwidth value programmability corresponds to the
claimed configuration of buffer size in accordance with the expected
utilization of the network (see Ans. 5).3

3 We agree with Appellants that Kadambi col. 15 is not pertinent to the issue
of buffer size configuration (Reply Br. 3), and we do not rely on that portion
of Kadambi.
Appeal 2012-003139
Application 11/885,219

5
Appellants’ contention that the Examiner improperly combined
Kadambi’s packet transaction pool, packet pool, and ingress function side
FIFO into one (Reply Br. 3) is not persuasive. We find that Kadambi’s
teachings concerning the COS queue priority within transaction FIFO 132
(col. 31, ll. 15-24) are sufficient FIFO disclosures in Kadambi to support the
Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants’ argument that Kadambi’s FIFO 132 size is fixed, and thus
not configurable, is not persuasive because Kadambi discloses the ability to
change the bandwidth (i.e. size) of a plurality of COS plurality queues
within the FIFO. Appellants’ contention that Kadambi stores data in the
FIFO during the egress function, which is after the updating of the address
assignment, is not germane to the Examiner’s rejection, because the
Examiner relies on Banks for a teaching of storing a data packet during
updating of the address assignment (see App. Br. 8; Ans. 5).
Last, we do not agree with Appellants that Dahlgren fails to disclose
configuring the buffer “based on a number of data packets expected to be
sent to the Internet address,” as is claimed (see App. Br. 9). We agree with
the Examiner that Dahlgren tracks the number of bytes to be transmitted to
the destination station (Ans. 12–13). “Controller 73 maintains a count of
packet bytes received and stored in RAM 78 and reads the length field in the
packet header as it arrives in RAM 78 to determine the length of the packet”
(Dahlgren col. 10, ll. 25–28). We find that Dahlgren thus discloses counting
the number of bytes expected to be sent to a particular address, as is recited
in claim 7.
We do not agree with Appellants’ contentions that motivation to
combine the references is lacking because (a) Banks does not change the
Appeal 2012-003139
Application 11/885,219

6
size of its bridge memory or (b) the Examiner’s proposed combination
would change the principle of operation in Banks (App. Br. 10). Kadambi’s
bandwidth programmability provides the ability to increase or decrease
buffer space according to expected network utilization. We also find that the
Examiner has stated reasons to combine Banks with Kadambi and Dahlgren
having a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness (Ans. 6).
Appellants have not persuasively demonstrated that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over Banks in view of Kadambi and Dahlgren.
We sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 7–15.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Banks discloses storing the data packet to be sent in a buffer during
the updating of the address assignment.
2. Kadambi discloses buffer size configured in accordance with the
expected utilization of the local network.
3. Dahlgren discloses buffer size configured based on a number of
data packets expected to be sent to the Internet address.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7–15 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

tj