Ex Parte Shibata et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2014

11265513 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2014)

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.
11/265,513 11/03/2005 Goh Shibata 00380391AA 5958
30743 7590 07/15/2014
WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C.
11491 SUNSET HILLS ROAD
SUITE 340
RESTON, VA 20190
EXAMINER
AGA, SORI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2014 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 GOH SHIBATA, ATSUSHI KAWABATA, YUKO ASANO,
TUTOMU MURASE, HIDEYUKI SHIMONISHI, YOHEI HASEGAWA,
and YASUHIRO YAMAZAKI
____________

Appeal 2011-004584
Application 11/265,513
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing claims 1-16. Appeal Brief 31. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.

Introduction
“The invention as defined in the claims on appeal is directed to
Internet communications and, more particularly, to session relay equipment
and session relay methods capable of providing fast and smooth TCP session
operation to a user.”

Appeal 2011-004584
Application 11/265,513

2

Appeal Brief 7.
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A session relay equipment comprising:

a bridge portion, implementing a bridge portion processing session
protocol, which relays a TCP session by which a sequence of packets are
transmitted and received between terminals connected with each other via a
network;

a socket information table which has socket information containing
address information of one of said terminals and protocol information used
in said TCP session, said socket information being associated with
information on whether or not said TCP session is to be terminated; and

a service information table which has information on a
communication service being identified based on predetermined information
within a heard of said packet,

wherein said bridge portion terminates said TCP session, dividing
said TCP session into two TCP sessions between terminals and the session
relay equipment, and executes a communication service based on said
information contained in said header of said packet and said socket
information, and

wherein the bridge portion processing session protocol includes
sending ACK (Acknowledge) packets of the transport protocol.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Yan (US Patent Application Publication Number
2005/0117605 A1; published June 2, 2005), Voit (US Patent Number
6,157,648; issued December 5, 2000), Rasanen (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2005/0141484 A1; published June 30, 2005) and
Bhagwat (US Patent Number 5,941,988; issued August 24, 1999). Answer
4-17.
Appeal 2011-004584
Application 11/265,513

3

Claims 6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yan, Voit, Rasanen, Bhagwat, and Zuk (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2004/0199535 A1; published October 7,
2004). Answer 17.

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 1, 2010), the Answer (mailed
November 12, 2010) and the Reply Brief (filed January 10, 2011) for the
respective details. We have considered in this decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants contend the Examiner’s reliance upon Rasanen to address
the stated deficiency of Yan is lacking. Appeal Brief 34. Appellants
contend Rasanen teaches “the use of two different sessions (IP and CS)
[Internet Protocol and Circuit Switched] for two different kind of networks
(a packet switched network and a circuit switched network) to facilitate
inter-networking between them.” Id.
Appellants conclude:
However, the claimed invention does not care whether two
networks have different switching principles or not. Rather, the
present invention divides a TCP session into two TCP sessions,
because of RTT (delay which packets experience in a network).
The present invention uses two sessions of the same kind of
transport protocol. Dividing RTT for throughput of each TCP
session outperforms the original TCP session. It is obvious that
Rasanen does not intend to divide RTT in order to improve
TCP throughput.
Appeal 2011-004584
Application 11/265,513

4

Id.
The Examiner states Appellants’ arguments in regard to Rasanen “has
no bearing [on determining patentability] since an intended use of the
claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed
invention and the prior art.” Answer 21. The Examiner further surmises
“[i]f the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it
meets the claim.” Id.
Appellants address the Examiner’s findings by contending that the
claimed invention is structurally distinctive over the prior art because the
claimed “structural difference produces a new and unexpected result, i.e.,
improving the throughput of TCP sessions, in a new and different way, i.e.,
dividing the terminated TCP session into two separate TCP sessions.” Reply
Brief 2.
Appellants further argue:
One divided TCP session is established between the
transmitting terminal 2 and the session relay equipment and the
other divided TCP session is established between the session
relay equipment and the receiving terminal 3 to accelerate the
RTT (round trip time-the time required for a packet to travel
from a point A to a point B and back to point A).
Id.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings and find Appellants’
arguments persuasive. The Examiner does not address Appellants’
arguments in regard to the Rasanen reference. The Examiner’s rejection
indicates Rasanen is capable of performing the intended use of Appellants’
bridge portion recited in claim 1. Answer 6. The Examiner cites to Rasanen
paragraph 46 for support for his findings. Answer 6. The Examiner does
not indicate or map with specificity, which element or elements are
Appeal 2011-004584
Application 11/265,513

5

equivalent to the Appellants’ claimed bridge portion. Rasanen’s Figure 5
discloses a box labelled “MGCF/MGW” that appears to act as a “bridge”
between the Packet Switched Domain and the Circuit Switched Domain.1
However, it is not clear that Rasanen’s “bridge” is capable of terminating a
TCP session and dividing the session into two TCP sessions as recited in
claim 1.
Further, the Examiner’s reliance upon Bhagwat fails to address the
deficiency of Rasanen because Bhagwat discloses “merging two separate
TCP connections terminating at a common host and ‘gluing’ them into a
single connection between two end systems.” Bhagwat, Abstract. As
Appellants contend, “Bhagwat et al. proxy server uses two different TCP
connections, it is not aimed at dividing TCP.” Appeal Brief 35. We find
Appellants’ contentions persuasive because Bhagwat discloses what appears
to be the opposite of what the claims narrate.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1, as well as, independent claims 8 and 16, since both are
commensurate in scope with claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 1-7 and 9-15 for the same reasons
articulated above since they are dependent upon independent claims 1, 8,
and 16.

1 MGCF+MGW (Media Gateway Control Function+Media Gateway);
Rasanen ¶ 78.
Appeal 2011-004584
Application 11/265,513

6

DECISION
The obviousness rejections of claims 1-16 are reversed.

REVERSED
rwk