Ex Parte Rodrigo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2014

10569780 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MIGUEL DE VEGA RODRIGO
____________

Appeal 2012-009124
Application 10/569,780
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 9–18. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1–8 are canceled.
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG as the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) US Patent Office records reflect that the
application is currently assigned to Xieon Networks S.a.r.l.
Appeal 2012-009124
Application 10/569,780

2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to transmitting data packets between
network nodes of an optical network. (Spec. p. 1.) Claim 9, reproduced
below, is illustrative of this claimed subject matter:
9. A method for transmitting data packets between a first
communications network node and a second communications
network node of a communications optical network,
comprising:
reserving a data channel for transmitting a first data burst
having aggregated data packets;
transmitting the first data burst via the data channel;
retaining the data channel for a consecutive transmission
phase after transmitting the first data burst;
transmitting additional non aggregated data packets on-
the-fly between the nodes during the consecutive transmission
phase; and
terminating the connection while data packets are
transmitted on-the-fly when the data channel is at least partially
required for transmitting a second data burst via another
connection between further communication network nodes.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Garland et al. US 6,167,042 Dec. 26, 2000
Kozaki, et al. US 2002/0114043 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Stilling US 2003/0007219 A1 Jan. 9, 2003
Xiong, et al. US 6,671,256 B1 Dec. 30, 2003
Corbalis, et al. US 6,882,766 B1 Apr. 19, 2005
Appeal 2012-009124
Application 10/569,780

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 9–11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Xiong, Corbalis and Kozaki. (Ans. 5–8.)
Claims 12–13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Xiong, Corbalis, Kozaki and Garland. (Ans. 8–9.)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Xiong, Corbalis, Kozaki and Stilling. (Ans. 9–10.)
Claims 16–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Xiong, Corbalis, Kozaki and Garland. (Ans. 10–11.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (“Br.”), the issues
presented on appeal are:
First Issue: Whether the subject matter of independent claim 9 would
have been obvious in light of Xiong, Corbalis and Kozaki.
Second Issue: Whether the subject matter of dependent claim 11
would have been obvious in light of Xiong, Corbalis and Kozaki.
ANALYSIS
First Issue
We adopt the Examiner’s reasoning that led to his conclusion that
claims 9–11 and 14 were obvious in light of Xiong, Corbalis and Kozaki,
and are persuaded by the Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s arguments.
(Ans. 5–8, 12–15.) Appellant argues that none of the elements of claim 9
are taught or suggested by the cited references. (Br. 6–12.) Appellant’s
arguments attack each of the references individually, an approach that is
Appeal 2012-009124
Application 10/569,780

4
unpersuasive where, as here, the rejections are based on a combination of
references.” See, e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant argues that the Xiong reference does not teach or suggest
the claim 9 preamble limitation, “A method for transmitting data packets
between a first communications network node and a second communications
network node of a communications optical network.” (Br. 6–7.) However,
we agree with the Examiner that Figure 2 and the accompanying text of
Xiong satisfies this language. (Ans. 5; Xiong Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 37–55.)
Appellant argues that Xiong does not disclose “transmission of non
aggregated (IP) data packets on-the-fly as required by claim 9.” (Br. 6.)
However, the preamble of claim 9 imposes no such requirement.
Appellant also argues that Xiong does not teach “reserving a data
channel” as required in the first element of claim 9, because the channel in
Xiong is “blocked” and cannot “be used for additional connections.” (Br. 7–
8.) However, we agree with the Examiner that Xiong teaches or suggests
reserving a data channel as claimed. (Ans. 5–6; Xiong col. 2, ll. 12–25.)
Xiong discloses that the channel reservation can be terminated. (Ans. 6;
Xiong col. 9, ll. 14–18.) In addition, as discussed further below, Xiong
taken together with Corbalis and Kozaki teaches or suggests the additional
characteristics of the channel reservation to the extent required by the
remaining elements of claim 9.
With respect to the “transmitting the first data burst” limitation of
claim 9, Appellant does not dispute that Xiong discloses such transmission,
but argues that “in the instant invention, after the first burst is transmitted
and the channel is available during the consecutive phase, only data packets
are transmitted on-the-fly.” (Br. 8.) However, this claim element is only
Appeal 2012-009124
Application 10/569,780

5
directed to the transmission of a first data burst, and we agree with the
Examiner that Xiong teaches or suggests this limitation. (Ans. 6; Xiong
col. 6, ll. 47–48.)
Appellant argues that Xiong does not teach or suggest the “retaining
the data channel” limitation of claim 9, because the channel reservation of
Xiong does not disclose “retaining this channel for further transmission of
non aggregated data packets.” (Br. 9.) However, as discussed below, the
aspects of the claim that require transmission of non aggregated data packets
are taught or suggested by Kozaki. We agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that the “retaining the data channel” limitation is taught or
suggested by the disclosure in Xiong of the ability to reserve a channel, and
to terminate that reservation. (Ans. 6; Xiong col. 9, ll. 14–17, col. 10, ll. 9–
10.)
For the limitation of claim 9 that requires “transmitting additional non
aggregated data packets on-the-fly between the nodes during the consecutive
transmission phase,” the Examiner cited Kozaki, which discloses
transmission of “periodic data such as sound data” interspersed between
transmissions of burst data. (Ans. 7; Kozaki ¶¶ 7, 14.) We agree that such
periodic data are non aggregated data. Appellant nonetheless argues that
this disclosure does not teach or suggest this claim element, because “The
data streams [in Kozaki] are transmitted by two different data sources,” in
contrast to “a single data stream” that is “transmitted as bursts and as data
packets on-the-fly.” (Br. 11–12.) We are not persuaded, because the claim
does not require the aggregated and non aggregated data to be part of a
single data stream.
Appeal 2012-009124
Application 10/569,780

6
Finally, the Examiner cited Corbalis together with Xiong as teaching
or suggesting the “terminating the connection” limitation of claim 9.
(Ans. 6.) In addition to the disclosure of terminating the connection in
Xiong discussed above, Corbalis discloses interrupting connections for
rerouting to handle new connections. (Corbalis col. 1, ll. 54–59.) Appellant
argues that “Corbalis does not disclose that ‘data packets are transmitted on-
the-fly,’” and that Corbalis “teaches away” from the “claimed feature.”
However, we are not persuaded by these arguments, given that, as discussed
above, Kozaki teaches or suggests transmission of non aggregated data —
i.e., on-the-fly transmission of data packets — and in addition the subject
matter of the references are sufficiently related so as to form the basis of a
sound obviousness conclusion.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as
obvious in light of Xiong, Corbalis and Kozaki.
Second Issue
Dependent claim 11 adds to the limitations of claims 9 and 10, the
requirement that “transmission capacity for the new connection is only
reserved during the consecutive transmission phase.” The Examiner
concluded that this additional limitation was also taught or suggested by the
above-discussed combination of Xiong, Corbalis and Kozaki, and in
particular by the provision in Xiong for reservation of channels during burst
transmissions. (Ans. 7–8; Xiong col. 2, ll. 16–19.) The Appellant argues
that Xiong “does not disclose the transmission of data packets on-the-fly
during a consecutive phase.” (Br. 12.) However, as discussed above, Xiong
Appeal 2012-009124
Application 10/569,780

7
together with Kozaki teach or suggest this aspect of the claim. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 9 and 11 in light of Xiong, Corbalis and Kozaki. For the same
reasons, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of: (i) claims 10
and 14 in light of Xiong, Corbalis and Kozaki; (ii) claims 12–13 and 16–18
in light of Xiong, Corbalis, Kozaki and Garland; and (iii) claim 15 in light of
Xiong, Corbalis, Kozaki and Stilling. Each of these claims depends directly
or indirectly from claim 9 and was not argued separately with particularity.
(Br. 12–13.)

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9–18 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)(2011).

AFFIRMED

lv