Ex Parte Mitra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2014

11351367 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DEBASIS MITRA, IRAJ SANIEE, ANWAR I. WALID, and
INDRA WIDJAJA
____________

Appeal 2011-013700
Application 11/351,367
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-013700
Application 11/351,367

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-21, which are the only claims remaining in
the application. Claim 9 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Illustrative Claim
1. A method, comprising:
selecting one of a plurality of candidate gateways to
connect a multimedia communication session between a packet
network and a time-division multiplexed network, the packet
network having a source or ingress node for the multimedia
communication session, the time-division multiplexed network
having a destination of the multimedia communication session,
the candidate gateways interconnecting the packet network and
the time-division multiplexed network; and
wherein the selecting step, performed by a server or a
router, includes comparing end-to-end congestions for bearer
traffic between the source node and different candidate
gateways of the plurality, randomly or pseudo-randomly
choosing a proper subset of the candidate gateways and
selecting from the proper subset that one of the candidate
gateways for which the end-to-end congestion for bearer traffic
with the source node is lowest.

Prior Art
Krishnaswamy US 5,867,494 Feb. 2, 1999
Aoki US 2005/0195795 A1 Sept. 8, 2005
She US 7,133,922 B1 Nov. 7, 2006
Sylvain US 7,257,109 B2 Aug. 14, 2007

Appeal 2011-013700
Application 11/351,367

3
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-8, 11-15, and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sylvain, Aoki, and She.
Claims 10 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sylvain, Aoki, She, and Krishnaswamy.

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of Sylvain, Aoki, and She does
not teach “randomly or pseudo-randomly choosing a proper subset of the
candidate gateways” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-4. The
Examiner finds the broadest reasonable interpretation of “pseudo-random” is
any process by which a selection may be made based on some underlying
statistical method. Ans. 23-24. Using this interpretation, the Examiner finds
She’s teaching of selecting a gateway by eliminating overloaded source
gateways, then eliminating on the basis of stream quality, teaches “pseudo-
randomly choosing a proper subset of the candidate gateways.” Ans. 23-24.
We disagree with the Examiner’s interpretation of pseudo-random.
We agree with Appellants that She does not teach “randomly or pseudo-
randomly choosing a proper subset of the candidate gateways” as recited in
claim 1 for the reasons given in the Appeal and Reply Briefs.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and corresponding
dependent claims 2-8, 10 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Each of
independent claims 11 and 17 contain a limitation similar to that recited in
claim 1 for which the rejection fails. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 11 and corresponding dependent claims 12-16, and claim 17 and
corresponding dependent claims 18-20.
Appeal 2011-013700
Application 11/351,367

4

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-8, 11-15, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Sylvain, Aoki, and She is reversed.
The rejection of claims 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sylvain, Aoki, She, and Krishnaswamy is reversed.

REVERSED

ke