Ex Parte SHARPLES et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 20, 2019

15117560 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/117,560 08/09/2016
23117 7590 06/24/2019
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter SHARPLES
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.
RYM-36-2594 1513
EXAMINER
TADESE, BERHANU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2019 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER SHARPLES AND TREVOR LINNEY
Appeal2018-008364
Application 15/117,560 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 6-10, 12-15, and 18-20. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, British Telecommunications plc, is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 2-5, 11, and 16-17 are objected to, but not rejected. Appeal Br. 7.
Appeal2018-008364
Application 15/117,560
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
The disclosed invention relates to allocating resources in a DSL
network. Abstract. A DSL connection provides digital communication over
existing twisted copper pair subscriber lines extending between DSL
modems. Spec. 1:6-10. A customer's DSL modem is connected to a second
modem, which may be part of a DSL Access Multiplier, or "DSLAM." Id.
at 1: 10-16. The DSLAM may be located at a local exchange, street cabinet,
or distribution point, which are arranged in a hierarchy of tiers of levels 1, 2,
and 3, respectively. Id. at 1:10-16, 20-26. The DSLAM is connected by a
faster optical fiber connection to a Core Network and a Network
Management System (hereinafter, "NMS"). Id. at 1:15-18. The disclosed
resource allocation allocates resources based on the requirements of each tier
as communicated by network elements in the tiers. Id. at 3:11--4:6.
Independent claim 1 below is exemplary of the disclosed invention,
and reads as follows, with emphasis added:
A method for allocating resources in a DSL network, the
DSL network having a hierarchy including a first and second
tier, the method comprising the steps of:
a first-tier DSL network element receiving a resource
requirement of a second-tier DSL subscriber line from a
second-tier DSL network element;
the first-tier DSL network element determining a
resource requirement of a first tier DSL subscriber line; and
the first-tier DSL network element allocating resources to
the first-tier DSL subscriber line based on the resource
requirements of the first and second tier DSL subscriber lines.
Independent claims 10 and 15 are directed to devices, and recite
limitations commensurate with the limitations recited in claim 1, except that
the device allocating resources in claim 10 is "disposed on the first-tier," and
2
Appeal2018-008364
Application 15/117,560
the device allocating resources in claim 15 is "disposed on the second-tier."
Appealed dependent claims 6-9, 12-14, and 18-20 each incorporate the
limitations of their respective independent claims. Appellants do not argue
any claims separately from claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. Claims 6-10, 12-15,
and 18-20 are rejected under the same grounds as claim 1.
Examiner's Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6-10, 12-15, and 18-20 under AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Wei et al. (U.S.
2014/0254791 Al; published Sep. 11, 2014) (hereinafter, "Wei") in view of
Applicant's Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter "AAPA").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 5-12) in light
of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred (Appeal Br. 7-12).
Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants'
contentions. Ans. 8-9. We have also reviewed the Appellants' Reply Brief.
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend that the combination of applied
references does not teach or suggest a DSL network element that receives a
resource requirement of a different tier subscriber line, and that allocates
resources based on the resource requirements of first-tier and second-tier
subscriber lines. Appeal Br. 7-12.
The Examiner rejects claim 1 over AAP A in view of Wei. Final Act.
5. The Examiner finds AAP A to teach or suggest a prior art DSL network,
the network having a three-tier hierarchy, wherein a Network Management
System (NMS) that is capable of determining and allocating resources is
connected through the Core Network to the first tier of the DSL network. Id.
3
Appeal2018-008364
Application 15/117,560
at 6. The Examiner equates the claimed DSL network element to the
AAPA's NMS, which the Examiner finds to receive a resource of the first
and second tiers of the DSL network via the DSLAMS located at the first
and second tiers, respectively. Id. at 6-7. The Examiner finds AAPA to
teach or suggests all claimed elements except for the resource requirements,
which the Examiner finds to be taught or suggested by Wei. Id. at 7.
Appellants first argue that the AAPA's NMS shown in Figure 1 is not
a "first-tier DSL network element" as claimed. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants
argue that the NMS is not in the DSL network, but instead is located behind
the Core Network. Id. Appellants further argue that the Specification
discusses the advantages of using a DSL network element instead of the
NMS, since that reduces computational burden on the NMS. Id. at 8-9,
citing Spec. 4:1-6. Appellants further argue that none of the DSL elements
in AAP A Figure 1, e.g., the DSLAMs, are taught or suggested by AAP A to
perform these functions. Id. at 9.
We find Appellants' argument on this issue to be persuasive.
Appellants' position is supported by the Specification, which describes the
DSL network as comprising the local exchange, street cabinet, customer
premises, customer DSL modems, DSLAMs, and subscriber lines. Spec.
7:2-11. The NMS is described as being connected to the Core Network,
which is itself connected through telephony infrastructure to the DSLAMs.
Id. at 7:13-15. Figure 1 of the AAPA shows the NMS in the same
configuration relative to the DSL network. The AAP A describes prior art
techniques as using the NMS to determine resource allocations "offline,"
which is a "manual and time-consuming process for the Network Operator."
Spec. 2:31-34. The Examiner does not explain why, in view of the
4
Appeal2018-008364
Application 15/117,560
Specification and Appellants' arguments concerning the configuration and
function of the NMS in AAP A and Appellants' invention, the NMS would
be considered as being part of the first-tier DSL network by one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. We determine
that, for claim 1, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's rejection.
However, claim 10 requires only that the device be "disposed on" the
first tier. Since both AAP A Figure 1 and Appellants' inventive Figure 2
show the NMS to be in the same box labeled "Exchange" that represents tier
1, and because Appellants have not shown that one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made would not consider the NMS to be
a device "disposed on the first-tier," we are not persuaded that Appellants'
argument against the rejection of claim 1 is persuasive as to claim 10.
Claim 15 requires that the device be "disposed on" the second tier.
Unlike claim 10, AAPA does not indicate that the NMS would be part of the
second tier. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above for claim 1, we
determine that Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 15.
With respect to claim 1, and independent claims 10 and 15, we find
persuasive Appellants' argument that Wei does not teach or suggest
receiving resource requirements from other tiers. The Examiner points to
Wei as teaching or suggesting a DSL network element, in the form of
Dynamic Resource Allocation ("DRA") module 122, for receiving Dynamic
Resource Reports "from the L2+ functionality module 112 for each of the
lines in the coordinated group." Ans. 9. Appellants argue that this teaching
of Wei does not pertain to receiving reports pertaining to other tiers, but only
to reports from its own DSL and local environment. Reply Br. 6. We
5
Appeal2018-008364
Application 15/117,560
determine that Appellants' argument is consistent with the disclosure of
Wei, which describes the "lines in the coordinated group" as being the pair
lines between the consumer premises and the upstream network, and not
necessarily including any other tiers. See, e.g., Wei ,r,r 35-37. We therefore
are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner has not shown
Wei to teach or suggest receiving resource requirements from other tiers.
We determine that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1. Since the Examiner relies upon the identical teachings or
suggestions for claims 6-10, 12-15, and 18-20 as for claim 1, and since
each of these claims contains limitations commensurate with the "receiving
resource requirements" from another tier as set forth in claim 1, Appellants'
arguments are also persuasive as to error in those obviousness rejections. In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
CONCLUSION
We conclude that Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 6-10, 12-15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In view
of the foregoing, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims
1, 6-10, 12-15, and 18-20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 6-10, 12-15, and
18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
6