Ex Parte Suryaputra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2013

12241539 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN SURYAPUTRA, INDERMOHAN S. MONGA,
BRUCE A. SCHOFIELD, and THOMAS P. HARDJONO
___________

Appeal 2011-006535
Application 12/241,539
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006535
Application 12/241,539

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the rejection of claims 48-67. Appeal Brief
2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to managing communication services
wherein different end systems (enterprise networks or devices) are
interconnected by a service provider’s network. Appeal Brief 2.

Illustrative Claim
48. Apparatus for managing alternate site switching where a
protected end- system of a user is in communication with a
primary end-system of the user over an optical communication
network of a service provider, including: backup end-system
designation circuitry which designates at least one backup end-
system to back up the primary end-system; failover tree
construction circuitry which constructs a failover tree to the at
least one backup end-system, the failover tree including at least
one node in the optical communication network of the service
provider, the failover tree being constructed prior to detection
of failure or degradation of the primary end-system; and
signaling circuitry which sends a setup request message to the
at least one node in the optical communication network of the
service provider specifying the failover tree structure, whereby
the optical communication network of the service provider is
prepared to respond to a failure in the user network.

Appeal 2011-006535
Application 12/241,539

3
Rejections on Appeal1
Claims 48-50, 54-57, and 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Chaudhuri (U.S. Patent Number 7,031,299 B2;
issued April 18, 2006). Answer 3-8.
Claims 58, 60-62, and 64-67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Chaudhuri and Hillard (U.S. Patent Number
6,765,880 B1; issued July 20, 2004). Answer 8-11.

Issue
Does Chaudhuri disclose the signaling and designation circuitry of
claim 48, as well as, the node that constructs the failover tree as recited in
claim 54?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
arguments. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue Chaudhuri’s depiction of two clients IP routers
interconnected by optical cross connects is not end systems as Examiner

1 “The rejections of independent claims 48 and 54 are the subject of this
appeal.” Appeal Brief 2.
Appeal 2011-006535
Application 12/241,539

4
finds, but rather paths between devices. Appeal Brief 10. Appellants further
argue that Chaudhuri fails to mention an optical cross-connection detecting
failure of IP routers and then redirecting traffic to a backup router. Id.
Appellants contend that Chaudhuri does not illustrate a primary end system
and a backup end system for a third end system because only two client IP
routers are shown rather than three. Id.
According to Appellants, service provider networks do not have
protection mechanisms for enterprise failures and the recited invention
permits the establishment of a failover tree that prepares the service provider
network to respond to a failure in the enterprise network. Appeal Brief 10-
11.
Appellants expound upon the invention as follows:
It is of course well known for the service provider network to
respond to a failure in the service provider network. The
following illustrates this well known scenario, where enterprise
devices A and B are connected via service provider devices 1, 2
and 3.

The claims recite a different scenario where the failure is in the
enterprise device. This is problematic because the service
provider network has traditionally lacked knowledge that the
enterprise was using A-C as a backup to A-B.

Appeal 2011-006535
Application 12/241,539

5

Further, the service provider network could not detect a failure
of device B because it is part of an enterprise network. The
claimed invention allows the establishment of backup path 1-3
for path 1-2, not for the purpose of a service provider network
failure, but for the purpose of an enterprise network failure,
e.g., failure of node B. Note that claim 48 recites “signaling
circuitry which sends a setup request message to the at least one
node in the optical communication network of the service
provider specifying the failover tree structure, whereby the
optical communication network of the service provider is
prepared to respond to a failure in the user network.”

Appeal Brief 11-12.
However, Chaudhuri’s Figure 3 is reproduced below:

Appeal 2011-006535
Application 12/241,539

6
Figure 3 discloses a simple nine-node network.
Two primary lightpaths are established between nodes A and D,
and G and D, over routes A-E-F-D and G-H-I-D, respectively.
Each lightpath requires a single channel on each link over the
chosen routes. The first hop routers are A and G. The
restoration routes for these lightpaths are A-B-C-D and G-A-B-
C-D, respectively.

Chaudhuri, column 17, lines 58 – 64.
The Examiner finds:
[I]t is clear that the network of devices A-E-F-D [of Chaudhuri]
form a primary end system, and the network of devices A-B-C-
D make up a backup end system. Claims 48 and 54 do not
define the structure of either the primary end system or the
backup end system, so therefore based on the broadest
reasonable interpretation of one skilled in the art, A-B-C-D and
A-E-F-D are both end systems. Furthermore, Chaudhuri shows
the concept of a failure occurring on a primary, and recovering
on a backup in Column 17 lines 58-Column 18 line 8, where a
primary lightpath includes nodes A-E-F-D, and when a failure
occurs over path E-F, restoration (backup) lighpath A-B-C-D is
taken to route data.

Answer 13.
We find the Examiner’s interpretation of the claims to be reasonable.
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest
reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Chaudhuri discloses a backup system that engages when there is a
defect in the optical communication network. See Chaudhuri Figure 3.
Appeal 2011-006535
Application 12/241,539

7
Further, the modifiers “user” and “service provider” (Appeal Brief 15)
associated with the end of the claimed communication network are
inconsequential in distinguishing the claimed invention over Chaudhuri
because they are merely statements of intended use for the claimed
apparatus: “Apparatus for managing alternate site switching where a
protected endsystem of a user is in communication with a primary end-
system of the user over an optical communication network of a service
provider, including;” (Claim 1, emphasis added). 2

Chaudhuri discloses a backup system for an optical communication
network that would be obvious to employ in any network to ensure that the
functioning of the network remain intact in spite of the end users or end
systems utilized because the backup system functions independent of the end
systems. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 48 and 54 for the reasons stated above, as well as dependent claims
49-53 and 55-67, not separately argued.

2 “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim
because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which
the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-
Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch
statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d
751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear
elsewhere in a claim. Id.

Appeal 2011-006535
Application 12/241,539

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 48-67 are sustained.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc