Ex Parte Quittek et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 14, 2012

10294768 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 14, 2012)

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.
10/294,768 11/15/2002 Jurgen Quittek Q72920 9395
7590 02/14/2012
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037-3213
EXAMINER
DAFTUAR, SAKET K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte JURGEN QUITTEK and CRISTIAN CADAR
__________

Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before JAMESON LEE, STEPHEN C. SIU, and ROBERT A. CLARKE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, and 12. Claims 2-5 and 7-10 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to time-synchronous data
transfer over a network (Spec. 1).

Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768

2
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
A method of transmitting time-synchronous data over a
network connection between at least two terminals, where
between the terminals a connection is established using a
Session Initialization Protocol (SIP) server and SIP protocol,
said method comprising having the SIP server analyze at least
one of the connection and said at least two terminals, and based
on this analysis determining an ideal bandwidth for optimizing
the transfer of time-synchronous data, wherein said method
further comprises reserving bandwidth for the connection based
on the analysis and guaranteeing Quality of Service (QoS),
wherein the analysis comprises determining at least one of a
data coding method for time-synchronous data transfer used by
the at least two terminals and a data decoding method for time-
synchronous data transfer used by the at least two terminals,
wherein the reservation of bandwidth is performed by the SIP
server using a QoS management system,
wherein the reservations of bandwidth for a plurality of
od connections are aggregated into at least one traffic trunk
comprising the plurality of connections, and wherein a
bandwidth of the at least one traffic trunk is reserved and
managed based on the analysis,
wherein reservations of bandwidth between at least two
end points are aggregated within the at least one traffic trunk,
wherein if a new connection is established between a first
terminal and a second terminal via the at least two endpoints,
said connection is mapped to the at least one traffic trunk
during establishment of said new connection, and
wherein a required bandwidth of at least one additional
connection is determined based on the analysis, and if the
required bandwidth of at least one additional connection
exceeds remaining available bandwidth of the at least one
traffic trunk the SIP server performs one of rejecting said at
least one additional connection and requests additional
Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768

3
bandwidth for the at least one traffic trunk using the QoS
management system.

The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Kawakami US 6,560,231 B1 May 6, 2003
Gibson US 6,680,943 B1 Jan. 20, 2004

Henning Schulzrinne, The Session Initiation Protocol: Internet-
Centric Signaling, IEEE Communications Magazine, October 2000,
(“Schulzrinne”).

The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schulzrinne, Gibson, and Kawakami.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 6, 11, and 12 as obvious
over the combination of Schulzrinne, Gibson, and Kawakami.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Schulzrinne discloses managing network sessions and
communications via the “Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)” (see, e.g.,
p. 134, col. 1) through the use of (SIP) servers (see, e.g., p. 137, col.
1, ll. 9-12) that use “SIP to directly set up resource reservations” (p.
138, col. 2, ll. 65-66) in which the system “indicates the receive
capabilities . . . for any number of media streams” (p. 137, col. 1, ll.
Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768

4
33-35) and indicates “whether resource reservation is suggested or
required” (p. 139, col. 1, ll. 13-15). Schulzrinne also discloses that
the determination of receive capabilities of media streams is based
on, for example, “codec type” and that end system typically “offer a
list of codecs” (p. 137, col. 1, ll. 33-40).
2. Gibson discloses processing “a communication session over a
communication network” using “the SIP messaging protocol”
(Abstract) in which a “connection manager monitors the bandwidth
used in each of the . . . paths” (col. 10, l. 25-26) and a required
bandwidth is reserved for a communication session (see, e.g., col. 17,
ll. 20-23).
3. Kawakami discloses aggregating user connections in a virtual
channel connection or virtual path connection (see, e.g., col. 3, ll. 39-
46, Fig. 1) in which a “bandwidth managing controllers 150 and 250
. . . determine the bandwidths . . . required for respective quality
classes” (col. 5, ll. 18-21).
4. Kawakami discloses “adding [a connection] to the currently
established connections” (col. 6, ll. 2-4) and that the “total required
bandwidth of the transmission path can be obtained as the sum total
of the required bandwidth calculated for respective quality classes”
and if “the total required bandwidth of the transmission path exceeds
the available bandwidth, the connection establishment is rejected”
(col. 6, ll. 28-30).
Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768

5
PRINCIPLE OF LAW
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Schulzrinne,
Gibson, and Kawakami suggests the features recited in claims 1, 6, 11, and
12 for at least the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
Appellants argue that “Kawakami fails to mention anything
whatsoever regarding a Session Initialization Protocol (SIP) server” (App.
Br. 11). As the Examiner indicates, however, Schulzrinne discloses
establishing a connection in a network using a SIP server and SIP protocol
(FF 1). Gibson also discloses utilizing a SIP messaging protocol (FF 2).
Since the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combination of Schulzrinne,
Gibson, and Kawakami and not on Kawakami alone, we are not persuaded
by Appellants’ argument.
Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768

6
Appellants argue that “Kawakami fails to teach the claimed features
‘wherein a required bandwidth of at least one additional connection is
determined . . .’” (App. Br. 12) and further states that “independent claim 1 .
. . recites . . . if the required bandwidth of at least one additional connection
exceeds remaining available bandwidth of the at least one traffic trunk . . .
rejecting said at least one additional connection . . .” (App. Br. 11). Hence,
Appellants appear to argue that Kawakami fails to suggest determining a
required bandwidth of an additional connection and if the required
bandwidth of the additional connection exceeds remaining available
bandwidth of the traffic trunk, rejecting the additional connection.
As described above, Kawakami discloses determining a bandwidth of
each connection (col. 5, ll. 20-24), which includes any additional connection
to be added to a pre-existing virtual connection/path (or “trunk”).
Kawakami discloses adding the additional connection (of which the
bandwidth was already determined – see col. 5, ll. 20-24) to a virtual
channel/path (i.e., “trunk”), further determining whether the total bandwidth
of the virtual channel or path (including the proposed additional connection
– see, e.g., col. 6, ll. 2-4, 14-17) exceeds a total available bandwidth of the
virtual channel (col. 6, ll. 28-31), and rejecting the additional connection if it
does (col. 6, l. 30). We agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, given the Kawakami reference, to
compare the determined bandwidth of the additional connection with the
Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768

7
remaining available bandwidth of the virtual channel/path or “traffic trunk”
as recited in claim 1.
In Kawakami, the bandwidth of an additional connection that is being
considered to be added to an existing virtual channel/path is added to the
bandwidth requirement of the virtual channel/path to determine if the
additional connection should be rejected or not (i.e., whether the new sum
total bandwidth requirement taking the bandwidth of the additional
connection into account exceeds the total available bandwidth of the virtual
channel/path). Hence, Kawakami is determining if the bandwidth of the
additional connection fits within the available bandwidth of the virtual
channel/path or not.
Claim 1 requires determining bandwidth of the additional connection
to be added to a trunk and comparing that determined bandwidth of the
additional connection with the remaining bandwidth capacity of the trunk
(and to take certain action in case the bandwidth requirement of the
additional connection exceeds the remaining capacity on the trunk). In light
of Kawakami’s disclosure of comparing the total required bandwidth of the
connections within the trunk or virtual channel/path (including the additional
connection) with the total available bandwidth of the trunk or virtual
channel/path, one with ordinary skill in the art would have known, as an
alternative, to compare the bandwidth requirement of the one additional
connection with the remaining available bandwidth capacity of the trunk as
recited in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that
Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768

8
mathematically and logically the two operations would yield the same result.
In other words, whether the total required bandwidth (including the
additional connection) exceeds the total existing bandwidth of the trunk or
virtual channel/path would have been recognized by one with ordinary skill
as asking the same question as whether the requirement of the additional line
exceeds what is currently still available. The level of ordinary skill in the art
is such that one with ordinary skill would have recognized that the two
inquiries yield the same result.
Appellants also argue that Kawakami fails to disclose or suggest that
the determination of bandwidth is “based on the analysis” (App. Br. 11).
Claim 1 recites that the analysis “comprises determining at least one of a
data coding method for time-synchronous data transfer . . . and a data
decoding method for time-synchronous data transfer used by the at least two
terminals” (App. Br. Claims Appendix 15). Hence, Appellants appear to
argue that Kawakami fails to disclose or suggest determining the bandwidth
based on a data coding method or a data decoding method.
We disagree with Appellants’ argument. Even assuming that
Appellants’ assertion is correct that Kawakami fails to disclose determining
bandwidth based on data coding or decoding methods, Schulzrinne discloses
determining a bandwidth of a connection based on codecs (FF 1). Since one
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood codecs to be computer
code that encodes or decodes data, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood Schulzrinne’s bandwidth determination to be based on
Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768

9
determining a coding or decoding method for data (i.e., use of specific
“codecs”). We discern no differences between determining bandwidth based
on codecs (which are computer code for encoding or decoding data) of
Schulzrinne and the claimed feature of determining bandwidth based on an
“analysis” that comprises determining a data coding or decoding method (or
“codec”). Since the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is based on the
combination of Schulzrinne, Gibson, and Kawakami rather than on
Kawakami alone and since Schulzrinne discloses the disputed feature, we
are not persuaded by Appellants.
Appellants also argue that that Kawakami fails to disclose that the
analysis is “by an SIP server” (App. Br. 11). As set forth above, we agree
with the Examiner that Schulzrinne (and Gibson) discloses a SIP server (and
protocol) (FF 1-2).
Appellants argue that “one of skill in the art would not have been
motivated to combine the references as the Examiner suggests” (App. Br.
12) because, according to Appellants, “the SIP protocol as utilized [by]
Gibson already provides a mechanism for establishing bi-directional
communications . . . [and therefore] there would be absolutely no need . . . to
combine Kawakami with Schulzrinne and Gibson” (App. Br. 12). We
disagree with Appellants.
Schulzrinne discloses a communication network in which data is
transmitted between end stations (Figs. 1, 3) in which required resources for
connections are reserved (see, e.g., p. 139, col. 1, 12-15). Gibson discloses
Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768

10
monitoring resources or bandwidth in a communication network (see, e.g.,
col. 10, ll. 25-26) thereby confirming that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have known that monitoring resources or bandwidth in a
communication network would have been a known function in maintaining a
communication network. Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art, given the
communication network of Schulzrinne in which required resources for
connections in the network are reserved, would have sought to discover the
amount, quality, and character of the resources needed to maintain the
connection in order to be able to “reserve” such resources for the connection.
Such knowledge of the resources would have been desirable (and necessary)
for one of ordinary skill in the art in order to maintain the network
connections as both Schulzrinne and Gibson disclose. In other words,
without monitoring the resources or bandwidth of the connections in the
network as Gibson discloses, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
been able to accomplish a communication network in which the resources
are reserved for use in the network (as in Schulzrinne). This is particularly
true since if one of ordinary skill in the art did not monitor the resources or
bandwidth needed by the connections in the network, one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have known the amount of resources to reserve for such
connections as disclosed in Schulzrinne.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to have monitored or determined the bandwidth or resources needed for
connections (as disclosed by Gibson) in a network as disclosed by
Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768

11
Schulzrinne in which the resources or bandwidth of connections are
“reserved” (which would have been based on the required bandwidth or
resources as one of ordinary skill in the art would have known by monitoring
such resources as disclosed in Gibson).
Kawakami (see, e.g., col. 5, ll. 18-24) also discloses user
communication via connections in communication networks in which
resources or bandwidth is monitored, reserved, and/or determined. As
described above, Schulzrinne and Gibson alone demonstrate that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have known to monitor, determine, and
reserve needed bandwidth for connections in a communication network.
Kawakami further confirms that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
known to determine bandwidths for connections in a communication
network. One of ordinary skill in the art, given the disclosure of Schulzrinne
and Gibson of determining and reserving bandwidth of connections in a
communication network would have further known to determine the
bandwidths of connections in a network based on Kawakami as Kawakami
also demonstrates that such a practice was known in the art.
In addition, Kawakami discloses that it would have been known to
one of ordinary skill in the art that individual connections for which
bandwidth was determined are aggregated into a virtual channel or virtual
path (see description above). It would also have been known to one of
ordinary skill in the art, after having monitored, determined, and reserved
bandwidth of individual connections in a communication network, that such
Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768

12
connections can be further aggregated into a virtual channel or path as
disclosed by Kawakami and bandwidth can further be determined,
monitored, and reserved for the aggregation of connection (see description
of Kawakami above). Combining these known processes of monitoring and
determining the bandwidth of connections in a communication network
(Schulzrinne and Gibson, for example) with the process of monitoring and
determining the bandwidth of the connections as an aggregation (Kawakami)
would have predictably resulted in data transmission between users in a
communication network at a desired (or required) bandwidth for the
connections and aggregation of connections in the network.
We therefore agree with the Examiner that such a combination would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. “The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at
416.

Appellants do not provide additional arguments in support of claims
6, 11, or 12.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 6, 11, and 12 as
obvious over the combination of Schulzrinne, Gibson, and Kawakami.

Appeal 2010-002254
Application 10/294,768

13
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 11, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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