Ex Parte Pichot

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2015

11613225 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/613,225 12/20/2006 Antoine Pichot LUC-866/ALU 106108 7395
47382 7590 01/27/2015
Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC
One N. LaSalle Street
44th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
EXAMINER
GHOWRWAL, OMAR J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2015 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 ANTOINE PICHOT
____________

Appeal 2012-010157
Application 11/613,225
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claims 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A node for a transport network that incorporates a
control plane and uses a routing protocol, comprising:
a traffic engineering database operable to store traffic
engineering data that comprises a topology of at least a part
of said transport network, a state of links between nodes of
the at least a part of said transport network, and resources
Appeal 2012-010157
Application 11/613,225

2
already used in the at least a part of said transport network;
and
a means of processing configured to receive first
routing protocol messages that incorporate traffic
engineering data from other nodes of said transport network
to feed said traffic engineering database, wherein said means
of processing is configured to attach timing data to predicted
traffic engineering data representative of a predicted
performance of at least one link of said transport network,
and wherein said means of processing is configured to send
second routing protocol messages containing said predicted
traffic engineering data and said attached timing data to said
other nodes of said transport network, and wherein said
means of processing is configured to store said attached
timing data in association with said predicted traffic
engineering data in said traffic engineering database; and
wherein said traffic engineering data not associated
with said timing data are stored in a first part of said traffic
engineering database and said predicted traffic engineering
data with said attached timing data are stored in a second part
of said traffic engineering database.

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1–7, 13, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Troxel (US
6,850,524 B1; Feb. 1, 2005) and Elliott (US 2003/0128690 A1; published
July 10, 2003). (Ans. 4.)
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Troxel, Elliott, and Lemieux
(US 2004/0006613 A1; published Jan. 8, 2004). (Ans. 10.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Troxel, Elliott, and Lakshman
(US 2006/0092976 A1; published May 4, 2006). (Ans. 12.)
Appeal 2012-010157
Application 11/613,225

3
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Troxel, Elliott, and Connelly (US
2002/0194607 A1; published Dec. 19, 2002). (Ans. 14.)
The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Troxel, Elliott, and Ravikanth (US
2003/0128911 A1; published July 10, 2003).1 (Ans. 15.)

ISSUE
The pivotal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Troxel and Elliot teaches the limitation of: “wherein
said traffic engineering data not associated with said timing data are stored
in a first part of said traffic engineering database and said predicted traffic
engineering data with said attached timing data are stored in a second part of
said traffic engineering database,” as recited in claim 1.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. Appellant contends that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Troxel does not
teach the limitation of “wherein said traffic engineering data not associated
with said timing data are stored in a first part of said traffic engineering
database and said predicted traffic engineering data with said attached
timing data are stored in a second part of said traffic engineering database,”
as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 6–7.) Appellant further contends that the
combination of Troxel and Elliott does not teach this limitation. (Id. at 7.)

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2–19. (App. Br. 4, 8–9.)
Appeal 2012-010157
Application 11/613,225

4
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Troxel teaches link state
advertisements (LSAs) (“traffic engineering data not associated with said
timing data”) stored in the topology database (“first part of said traffic
engineering database”). (Ans. 6 (citing Troxel, Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 10–40).)
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Troxel teaches predictions
(“predicted traffic engineering data”) stored in the routing table (“second
part of said traffic engineering database”). (Id. (citing Troxel, Fig. 2, col. 4,
ll. 1–40, col. 5, ll. 25–30).) Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
Troxel teaches storing traffic engineering data not associated with the timing
data in first part of the traffic engineering database and predicted traffic
engineering data in a second part of the traffic engineering database.
Appellant further argues that Troxel does not teach this limitation
because it does not separate fully the different types of traffic engineering
data; instead, according to Appellant, Troxel teaches that LSAs are stored in
both parts of the database (i.e., the topology database and the routing table),
and not only in the first part. (App. Br. 7.) We do not agree with
Appellant’s argument because we agree with the Examiner that Troxel does
not teach or suggest storing LSAs in the routing table. (Ans. 16–17.)
Specifically, Troxel teaches that LSAs are used to generate the routing table.
(Troxel, col. 4, ll. 34–39.) We further observe in passing that Elliott teaches
storing different types of traffic engineering data in separate tables. (Elliott,
Fig. 6, ¶¶ 65, 66.)
Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because a person of ordinary skill in the art would
not have combined Troxel and Elliott. (App. Br. 8.) Specifically, Appellant
contends that “there is no way to combine Troxel’s node with Elliott’s node
Appeal 2012-010157
Application 11/613,225

5
so as to form [Appellant’s] recited ‘means of processing’” and that in
making such a combination “a skilled person would not have had an
expectation of success.” (Id.)
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that the processors of the nodes in both Troxel and Elliott are
routers. (Ans. 18–19.) The Examiner also finds that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the table taught by
Elliott with the teachings of Troxel “to compute current beacon frequency in
a network of nodes that communicate with one another.” (Id. at 7, 19; see
Elliott, ¶¶ 45, 66.) Appellant has not addressed why the Examiner’s
rationale is not reasonable, and we agree with the Examiner that a person of
ordinary skill could have stored the predictions in Troxel with timing data
based on Elliott’s teachings with a reasonable expectation of success.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Troxel
and Elliot teaches the limitation of: “wherein said traffic engineering data
not associated with said timing data are stored in a first part of said traffic
engineering database and said predicted traffic engineering data with said
attached timing data are stored in a second part of said traffic engineering
database,” as recited in claim 1.

Appeal 2012-010157
Application 11/613,225

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

rvb