Ex Parte Morea et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613580425 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) 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. 13/580,425 09/19/2012 Annalisa Morea LUC-986/805367 US/SF 3634 47382 7590 12/27/2016 Patti & Malvone Law Group, LLC One North LaSalle St., 44th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 EXAMINER ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): info @ pattimalvonelg .com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANN ALISA MOREA, DOMINIQUE VERCHERE, MARTIN VIGOUREUX, and RICHARD DOUVILLE Appeal 2015-007273 Application 13/580,425 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2015-007273 Application 13/580,425 THE INVENTION “The invention pertains to the field of telecommunications networks. More specifically, the invention pertains to a signaling method for establishing a transport connection between nodes of such a network.” Spec. 1,11. 3—5. Claim 1 is illustrative of disputed subject matter and reproduced below. 1. A method for controlling the establishment of a connection within a transport network, said method comprising, receiving (61) within a first node of said network located on a path of said connection, a first signaling message for establishing said connection for the transport of a signal within said transport network, processing (62) said first signaling message to extract from it the information needed to identify a switching state for a transport switch of said first node, ordering (63) said transport switch to configure said transport switch in said switching state (65), estimating (64) a first piece of time information comprising an earliest configuration end date of said transport switch, generating a second signaling message, said second signaling message comprising said first time information for enabling a second node of the network to determine the configuration end date of said transport switch, and transmitting (67) said second signaling message to said second node of said transport network, so as to reduce an overall time to establish the connection. 2 Appeal 2015-007273 Application 13/580,425 THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3—8, and 10-15 stand rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as anticipated by Shiozawa (US 2006/0072471 Al; published April 6, 2006). Final Act. 3—6 (Dec. 11, 2014). Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Shiozawa and Owens (US 7,315,510 Bl; issued Jan. 1, 2008). Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Shiozawa does not teach a claimed estimating— quoted as “estimating (64) a first piece of time information comprising an earliest configuration end date of said transport switch ... so as to reduce an overall time to establish the connection!)]” App. Br. 9 et seq. (Appellants’ emph.). In support, Appellants further argue that Shiozawa rather teaches: “establishing, removing, protecting, or restoring one or more of a connection and path setup at a scheduled date and time'1'’ {id. at 9 (Appellants’ emph.)); and, as part thereof, “estimation of a completion date and time so as to fit a predetermined schedule (‘for the purpose of making a path setup completed by the scheduled date and time’)” {id. at 11 (quoting Shiozawa 146)). All claims recite or incorporate the above-quoted feature. The Examiner responds only: Shiozawa clearly teaches estimating a date and time when each process should be started (see para. 44) and the estimation of date and time is performed for making the path set up completed by the scheduled date and time, and the setup processing is performed for the purpose of making each of the steps to be started a necessary time period ahead of the schedule (see para. 46). Thus, Shiozawa knows the earliest configuration end date 3 Appeal 2015-007273 Application 13/580,425 or scheduled completion date and time ahead of schedule so that the [sic] each of the steps can be started at the required time. Ans. 2—3. We do not agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed estimating. The Examiner reads the claimed estimating of an “earliest configuration end date” on Shiozawa’s estimating of a start date that assures configuration will be completed by a desired end date. The claimed estimating and Shiozawa’s estimating are for determining different dates. As reflected by the claim language emphasized within Appellants’ brief (see supra), the claimed invention estimates the earliest date that configuring of a transfer switch will be completed as part of establishing a connection.2 That is, the claimed invention estimates when the switch will reach the configured state forming the connection. Moreover, the Specification further clarifies: “Here, the ‘switching end date’ of a transport switch refers to the date when that element [node C] reached a state enabling it to participate in the creation of the ACDEG connection.” Spec. 10,11. IS IS; see also id. at 11,11. 20-25 (explaining that the latest estimated configuration end date of a connection’s included nodes can be chosen as the earliest estimated configuration end date of the connection). 2 Appellants’ quoting of the independent claims implies that the “so as . . .” language directly describes the at-issue estimating of the earliest configuration end date. More particularly, the “so as . . .” language directly describes transmitting of the earliest configuration end date to a second node. But as a whole, the independent claims indeed convey that the estimated earliest configuration end date of a first node’s transport switch is thusly transmitted to “enabl[e] a second node of the network to determine the configuration end date of said transport switch” and “reduce an overall time to establish the connection[.]” 4 Appeal 2015-007273 Application 13/580,425 The claimed estimating of a configuration end date does not encompass Shiozawa’s estimating of when a date configuring must begin to assure completion by a scheduled date. The former is, as expressly claimed and described, an estimation of an earliest viable completion date. The latter is estimating of a latest viable start date, i.e., a “drop-dead” date for assured timely completion by a desired date. See e.g., Shiozawa 7, 29. Even assuming both estimations are deduced by similar means, steps, etc., e.g., by first determining a required duration for configuring a switch, they are nonetheless estimations of different dates. This distinction is not addressed by the Examiner. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation