Ex Parte Palm

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

11331606 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111331,606 01114/2006
51472 7590 09/22/2016
GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM)
P.O. BOX 160727
AUSTIN, TX 78716-0727
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen R. Palm
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BP4378 2971
EXAMINER
KASSIM, KHALED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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):
MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM
ghmptocor@texaspatents.com
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte STEPHEN R. PALM
Appeal2015-006696
Application 11/331,606
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-006696
Application 11/331,606
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3-8, and 10-22. Claims 2, 9, and 23-29 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to a network user priority assignment
system for assigning network user priorities on a network. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for assigning network user priorities on a
network having a Configuration Server and a Host, the method
compnsmg:
receiving a first traffic descriptor as part of a process of
acquiring a network address for the Host, the first traffic
descriptor generated by the Host and included in a discover
message signal generated by the Host, the first traffic descriptor
including two or more options from the group consisting of
Traffic Descriptor ID, Class, suggested Network User Priority
for the Traffic Descriptor ID; Traffic Identifier String; Source
Port Number, Destination IP Address, and Destination Port
Number;
transmitting a candidate traffic descriptor as part of the
process of acquiring a network address for the Host, the
candidate traffic descriptor included in a first off er message
signal;
receiving a second traffic descriptor as part of the process
of acquiring a network address for the Host, the second traffic
descriptor included in a request message signal; and
transmitting a third traffic descriptor, including at least a
network user priority value, as part of the process of acquiring a
network address for the Host, the third traffic descriptor included
in an acknowledgement signal.
2
Appeal2015-006696
Application 11/331,606
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buddhikot (US 2005/0013280 Al; publ. Jan. 20, 2005),
Dravida (US 2002/0075875 Al; publ. June 20, 2002), and Nakao (US 2005/
0021777 Al; publ. Jan. 27, 2005).
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 7-9) that the
combination ofBuddhikot, Dravida, and Nakao would not have rendered
obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "transmitting a
third traffic descriptor, including at least a network user priority value, as
part of the process of acquiring a network address for the Host."
The Examiner found that the Access Network Header ofDravida,
which includes quality of service (QoS) and Routing ID (RID) bits,
corresponds to the limitation "transmitting a third traffic descriptor,
including at least a network user priority value as part of the process of
acquiring a network address for the Host." (Ans. 3--4; see also Final Act. 3.)
We do not agree.
Dravida relates to "point-to-point data links between intelligent
network elements located in the feeder/distribution network to provide
reliable, secure, symmetric, bi-directional broadband access." (i-f 9.)
Figure 20 of Dravida illustrates a header structure for a packet (i-fi-f 34--35),
including Quality of Service (QoS) 818 and Routing ID (RID) 822 (i-f 146),
such that "QoS bits are used to prioritize traffic" and "[u]sing the 12-bit
RID, packets can be routed to the appropriate DS [(distribution switch)],
SAS [(subscriber access switch)], or NIU [(network interface unit)]" (i-f 147).
Dravida explains that "Tag/Topology server 132 ... is responsible for
3
Appeal2015-006696
Application 11/331,606
assigning the RlDs" and "acts as a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) server for assigning the RIDs and IP Addresses to the network
elements of the Access Network." (i-f 148.) Dravida further explains that
"[t]he Access Network ... provides QoS classes to support the various
bearer services required by different end-user applications" (i-f 192), for
example, QoS Classes 1--4 (i-fi-f 193-96).
Although the Examiner cited the Access Network Header ofDravida,
which includes QoS and RID bits (Ans. 3--4), the Examiner has provided
insufficient evidence to support a finding that Dravida teaches the limitation
"transmitting a third traffic descriptor, including at least a network user
priority value, as part of the process of acquiring a network address for the
Host." In particular, the Examiner has provided an insufficient explanation
as to how the QoS bits of Dravida are used to prioritize traffic "as part of the
process of acquiring a network address for the Host" as claimed, when
Dravida is silent with respect to assigning QoS bits as part of the DHCP
network protocol. On this record, we do not agree with the Examiner that
Dravida teaches the limitation "transmitting a third traffic descriptor,
including at least a network user priority value, as part of the process of
acquiring a network address for the Host."
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments that "Dravida fails
to disclose or suggest the claimed third traffic descriptor, including at least a
network user priority value" (App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted)) because
"packet header discussions fail to suggest that QoS is part of the DCHP
process" (id. at 8).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3-7 depend from independent claim 1.
4
Appeal2015-006696
Application 11/331,606
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 17 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 8 and 17, as well as dependent claims 10-16 and 18-22,
for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, and 10-22 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5