Ex Parte Puttaswamy Naga et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 2, 201813448661 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/448,661 04/17/2012 48116 7590 08/06/2018 FAY SHARPE/NOKIA 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Krishna P. Puttaswamy Naga 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. LUTZ201402US01 6802 EXAMINER MOORAD, IMRAN Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2442 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/06/2018 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): docketing@faysharpe.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KRISHNA P. PUTTASW AMY NAGA, MATTEO VARVELLO, and DIEGO PERINO Appeal2017-010195 Application 13/448,661 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-14 and 20-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 1 The real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017-010195 Application 13/448,661 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to method and apparatus for reducing content redundancy in content-centric networking. Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for reducing content redundancy in content- centric networking, comprising: distributing named content from content sources to content consumers through any combination of host source devices and intermediate source devices via a communication network using object messages that carry corresponding fingerprint names and data chunks, wherein the named content is divisible into data chunks that are represented by corresponding fingerprint names such that a content fingerprint list for chosen content identifies the data chunks using unique fingerprint names and avoids redundantly listing fingerprint names for data chunks with the same content data, wherein the fingerprint names are based on content data in the corresponding data chunk such that data chunks with the same content data for the same chosen content and for other named content are represented by the same fingerprint name and data chunks with different content data are represented by different fingerprint names; and at least temporarily storing object messages for the distributed named content in a local storage device for each of the intermediate source devices through which the corresponding object message is distributed using the fingerprint name to avoid redundant storage of object messages with the same content data in the same local storage device independent of the named content with which the corresponding object message is associated. 14. An apparatus for reducing content redundancy in content- centric networking, comprising: a consumer communication module; a source communication module; and a local storage device; wherein the consumer communication module and the source communication module are configured to distribute 2 Appeal2017-010195 Application 13/448,661 named content from content sources to content consumers through any combination of host source devices and intermediate source devices via a communication network using object messages that carry corresponding fingerprint names and data chunks, wherein the named content is divisible into data chunks that are represented by corresponding fingerprint names such that a content fingerprint list for chosen content identifies the data chunks using unique fingerprint names and avoids redundantly listing fingerprint names for data chunks with the same content data, wherein the fingerprint names are based on content data in the corresponding data chunk such that data chunks with the same content data for the same chosen content and for other named content are represented by the same fingerprint name and data chunks with different content data are represented by different fingerprint names; wherein the local storage device is configured to at least temporarily store object messages for the distributed named content using the fingerprint name to avoid redundant storage of object messages with the same content data independent of the named content with which the corresponding object message is associated. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Czechowski Hudson Jacobson US 2009/0100128 Al Apr. 16, 2009 US 2010/0011061 Al Jan. 14, 2010 US 2010/0195655 Al Aug. 5, 2010 REJECTIONS Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph as being indefinite. Claims 1, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as being anticipated by Hudson. 3 Appeal2017-010195 Application 13/448,661 Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hudson in view of Czechowski. Claims 3, 4, 7-13, 21, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hudson in view of Jacobson. Claims 5, 6, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hudson in view of Jacobson in further view of Czechowski. OPINION Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 112 second paragraph Appellants argue the Office Action appears to ignore the "configured to distribute" function context of claim 14 in finding that a "means plus function interpretation is invoked" under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph and thus, claim 14 is not indefinite. App. Br. 7. According to Appellants the context shows the "consumer communication module" and the "source communication module" are configured to perform the function. Id. Appellants explain the "consumer communication module" and the "source communication module" are structural elements of the claimed "apparatus for reducing content redundancy in content-centric networking." Id. Appellants further explain that the "configured to distribute" function involves distributing "named content from content sources to content consumers through any combination of host source devices and intermediate source devices via a communication network using object messages that carry corresponding fingerprint names and data chunks." Id. Appellants conclude the "consumer communication module" and the "source communication module" are structural elements of a communication device 4 Appeal2017-010195 Application 13/448,661 that interacts with content source devices and content consumers within a communication system. Id. Appellants further argue that the "configured to distribute" function specifically relates to an exchange of object messages between the host sources device( s) and/ or intermediate source device( s) and the claimed apparatus as well as between the claimed apparatus and content consumers. Id. Appellants direct us to paragraphs 97-99 and Figure 16 of the written description to provide support for the "consumer communication module 1602" and the "source communication module1604." Id. Appellants conclude that the written description provides corresponding structure for the claimed "configured to distribute" function attributed to the "consumer communication module" and the "source communication module," which do not invoke § 112, sixth paragraph and are not indefinite. Id. The Examiner responds that after reviewing Appellants' entire original disclosure, the only portions that remotely suggest a component are Figures 15 and 16 but "the elements disclosed are shown at a very high level of generality and are not sufficient enough for one having ordinary skill in the art to infer the presence of structural elements." Ans. 6. For example, Figure 15 shows "a host device 1502, comprising a content source processing subsystem 1512, a content storage device 1516, and another CCN Message Processing Subsystem 1514." Ans. 6. The Examiner explains that Figure 16 "shows a Local Storage Device 1606 and a Message Processing Controller 1614." Id. The Examiner acknowledges that Appellants' Specification recites the use of the terms "device," ''processing," and "computer," but explains that these terms fail to suggest specific hardware 5 Appeal2017-010195 Application 13/448,661 elements to where one having ordinary skill in the art could determine which structural elements would perform the claimed functions. Id. The Examiner concludes that due to the lack of disclosure regarding specific structural elements and a clear link between them and the functions claimed, the claimed "modules" may encompass entirely software, justifying the rejection. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. We agree with the Examiner that claim 14 is indefinite as a means-plus-function limitation that lacks adequate corresponding disclosures of structure. A claim limitation that does not include the word "means" is presumed to not invoke § 112 sixth paragraph, but the limitation will still invoke § 112 sixth paragraph if "the claim term fails to 'recite sufficiently definite structure' or else recites 'function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function."' Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en bane in relevant part) (quoting Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). To determine whether§ 112 sixth paragraph applies, we consider the limitation as a whole, not merely the terms "consumer communication module" and the "source communication module." See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1350 (describing a "distributed learning control module" as an "introductory phrase" and considering it as part of the entire passage in which it appears). In the instant case, neither the "consumer communication module" nor the "source communication module" nor the paragraphs in which the terms appear recite specific structures for performing the modules' associated functions. See id. ("'Module' is a well-known nonce 6 Appeal2017-010195 Application 13/448,661 word that can operate as a substitute for 'means' in the context of§ 112, para. 6. "). Our reviewing court held, "the fact that one of skill in the art could program a computer to perform the recited functions cannot create structure where none otherwise is disclosed." Id. at 1351 (citing Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Thus, Appellants' Specification recitations of the terms "device" and "computer," as acknowledged by the Examiner, do not provide the necessary structure. Accordingly, the presumption against means-plus-function claiming is rebutted and claim 14 invokes § 112 sixth paragraph. Then we consider whether Appellants' Specification discloses sufficient structure that corresponds to the claimed functions. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352. "Structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as 'corresponding structure' if the intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim." Id. For computer- implemented means-plus-function claim limitations, the corresponding structure must be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. Id.; Aristocrat Techs. Aust!. Pty Ltd. v. Int 'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The specification must disclose at least an algorithm for performing the claimed function. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352. In the case before us, paragraph 97 of Appellants' Specification broadly states that "[t]he CCN message processing subsystem may be a component of various types of network devices ( e.g., host devices, routing devices, serving devices, client devices, etc.) in any suitable combination within a communication network" without identifying specific structure for 7 Appeal2017-010195 Application 13/448,661 the modules. See Spec. para. 97. We further note Appellants do not cite an algorithm for performing the functions associated with the claimed modules. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification does not disclose adequate structure corresponding to the claimed "consumer communication module" and "source communication module." Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. 2 Claims 1, 14, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated Appellants argue Hudson's security value may be based on content of the segment, but it is used in an error checking manner to subsequently authenticate the integrity of the received content for the segment. App. Br. 10. That is, the "Hudson content manifest file is based on the segment sequence identifier and does not use the security value to avoid redundantly listing security values for segments with the same content." Id. Appellants assert that "the claimed content fingerprint list identifies data chunks using unique fingerprint names and avoids redundantly listing fingerprint names for data chunks [having] the same content data." App. Br. 10-11. Thus, according to Appellants Hudson's content manifest file is different from the claimed content fingerprint list because Hudson does not disclose any file or list that is the same as the claimed content fingerprint list. App. Br. 11. Appellants further argue that Hudson's "security value does not improve 2 We do not reach the issue of whether the terms "configured to at least temporarily store" and "local storage device" (see Ans. 6) constitute adequate structure because our decision on the claimed "modules" is dispositive of the indefiniteness of claim 14. 8 Appeal2017-010195 Application 13/448,661 efficiency by avoiding redundancies because it is not used in the same manner as the claimed fingerprint name." Id. The Examiner responds that "Appellants' arguments hold very little weight because Claim 1, as a whole, fails to show how reduction of content- redundancy is achieved" and the "claim needed to recite specific steps that would result in a reduction of redundant listing of content in content-centric networking." Ans. 8. We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. While we agree with the Examiner that the security value corresponds to a fingerprint of identifying chunks of data (see Spec. paras. 33-34), Hudson does not disclose using unique fingerprint names to avoid redundantly listing fingerprint names for data chunks with the same content data as required by claim 1. "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We do not ignore limitations of a claim merely because they lack sufficient detail, as asserted by the Examiner. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the Examiner's rejections of claims 14 and 20. 3 3 In the event of further prosecution, we also direct the Examiner's attention to apparatus claim 14 and whether a rejection would be proper if the intended use of avoiding redundancy would not make the structure of the apparatus novel. 9 Appeal2017-010195 Application 13/448,661 Claims 2-13 and 21-25 rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 103 We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-13 and 21-25 for the same reasons articulated supra with respect to claim 1. The additionally cited references do not cure Hudson's cited deficiency. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is affirmed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 2-13 and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation