Ex Parte Varvello et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

13154082 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/154,082 06/06/2011 Matteo Varvello ALC 3697 1324
76614 7590 01/31/2018
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
ELFERVIG, TAYLOR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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):
mail@krameramado.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTEO VARVELLO, GHULAM MEMON, and
IVICA RIMAC
Appeal 2016-000425
Application 13/154,082
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EVANS, and JASON J. CHUNG
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1—4 and 6—58. Claims Appx. Claim 5
is canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 19, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed October 8, 2015, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
September 9, 2015, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed April 30, 2015, “Final
Appeal 2016-000425
Application 13/154,082
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method and related network node for
transmitting a modified message. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1,6, 11, 20, 29, 38, 45, and 52 are independent. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1,
which is reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium
encoded with instructions for requesting content in a network
by a computer, the machine-readable storage medium
comprising:
instructions for determining a content item to request;
instructions for determining a pointer associated with the
content item, wherein the pointer is not dependent on a location
of the content item;
instructions for generating a request message including
the pointer, comprising instructions for inserting the pointer
into the request message as a destination address;
instructions for transmitting the request message to at
least one network node; and
instructions for receiving the content item from at least
one network node.
Irwin
References and Rejections
US 6,052,683 Apr. 18,2000
Act.”), and the Specification (filed December 3, 2012, “Spec.”) for their
respective details.
2
Appeal 2016-000425
Application 13/154,082
Choi US 2005/0165957 A1 July 28, 2005
Toumura US 2006/0248195 A1 Nov. 2, 2006
Housel US 7,315,541 B1 Jan. 1, 2008
Ransom US 2009/0279437 A1 Nov. 12, 2009
Gong US 2010/0058027 A1 Mar. 4, 2010
Bonsma WO 03/034669 A1 April 24, 2003
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1^1, 11, 17, 19, 20, 26, 28, 29, 38, 41, 43, 45, 48, 50, 52, 55,
and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Toumura and Bonsma. Final Act. 7—25.
2. Claims 6, 7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Toumura, Ransom, and Bonsma. Final Act. 25—29.
3. Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Toumura, Ransom, Bonsma, and Housel. Final Act. 29-31.
4. Claims 14, 15, 23, 24, 32, 40, 44, 47, 51, 54, and 58 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Toumura, Bonsma, and
Housel. Final Act. 31—33.
5. Claims 12, 13, 16, 21, 22, 25, 30, 31, 34, 39, 42, 46, 49, 53, and 56
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Toumura,
Bonsma, and Irwin. Final Act. 33—37.
6. Claims 18, 27, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Toumura, Bonsma, Choi, and Gong. Final Act. 37-40.
7. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Toumura, Bonsma, Irwin, and Housel. Final Act. 40-41.
3
Appeal 2016-000425
Application 13/154,082
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims \—A and 6—58 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants’
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7—17.
We are persuaded that Appellants identity reversible error.
Claims \-A, 11,17,19,20,26,28,29,38,41,43,45,48,50, 52, 55, and 57:
Obviousness over Toumura and Bonsma.
Appellants argue independent Claims 1, 6, 11, 20, 29, 38, 45, and 52
as a group. App. Br. 16. The dispositive issue is whether Bonsma teaches
“a pointer associated with the content item, wherein the pointer is not
dependent on a location of the content item,” as recited in Claim 1 and
commensurately recited in independent Claims 6, 11, 20, 29, 38, 45, and 52.
The Examiner finds Toumura teaches Claim 1 except for not teaching
wherein the pointer is not dependent on a location of the content item, which
is taught by Bonsma. Final Act. 8 (citing Bonsma, Abstr.; p. 12,11. 21—27).
Appellants contend Bonsma does not teach a pointer. App. Br. 15.
Appellants argue that nodes in the Bonsma system interact to acquire the
location of other nodes for communication. Id. Appellants argue Bonsma
mentions that objects may be retrieved, but the recited locations are of nodes
within the system. Id. Appellants conclude, therefore, that any inter-nodal
communication relates to the location of the nodes, but not to the locations
of the objects. Id.
The Examiner finds the “network address of the target node would be
representative of the requested [data] item.” Ans. 3. The Examiner finds
Bonsma teaches that Node A wanting to communicate with target Node B,
4
Appeal 2016-000425
Application 13/154,082
for which it lack a network address, will translate the target nodes ID into
coordinates in ID space of a virtual network. Id. Therefore, the Examiner
finds the translated ID in co-ordinates in ID space (TID-IDS) would be
representative of the pointer. Id.
Appellants first contend that to interpret a “network address” as a
content item is unreasonable. Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not understand a network address to be a
content item. Id.
Bonsma discloses that “nodes, such as personal computers, are
assigned co-ordinates in a co-ordinate space.” Bonsma, Abstr. (cited by the
Examiner). Bonsma further discloses that it “becomes possible for any node
to obtain the network address for a target node by initiating a query message
to a node it has the network address for, which query message is propagated
through the network between nodes which have the network address for a
next node across co-ordinate space.” Id. Bonsma, thereby fails to disclose a
pointer as such would be understood in the computer communications arts.
For example, the IEEE defines a “pointer” as a “data item that specifies the
location of another data item; for example, a data item that specifies the
address of the next employee record to be processed. (2) An identifier that
indicates the address or storage location of a data item.”3 * 5Emphasis added.
3 IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh
Edition, IEEE Press (2000) P. 836. Accord Microsoft Computer Dictionary,
5th Ed. Microsoft Press (2002) 410 (in “programming and information
processing, a variable that contains the memory location (address) of some
data rather than the data itself.); McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Electrical &
Computer Engineering, McGraw-Hill (2003) 435 (“Pointer [Comp. Sci.].
5
Appeal 2016-000425
Application 13/154,082
In contrast, Bonsma relates to a node* * 4, such as a PC or a server, but not to
the data items that may be stored thereon.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
independent Claims 1,6, 11, 20, 29, 38, 45, and 52.
Claims 2-A, 7-10,12-19,21-28,30-37,39-A4,46-51, and 53-58:
Obviousness over Toumura and Bonsma,
Ransom, Housel, Irwin, Choi, and Gong.
Appellants contend the dependent claims are allowable in view of the
patentability of their respective independent claims. The Examiner’s
Answer does not separately discuss the dependent claims. App. Br. 17. See
Ans. 3—6.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of the
dependent claims.
The part of an instruction which contains the address of the next record to be
accessed”).
4 Node. A junction point within a network. McGraw-Hill Dictionary of
Electrical & Computer Engineering, McGraw-Hill (2003) 388. Accord
Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 26th ed., Flatiron Publishing, Inc., New York
(2011) 810 (a “point of entry into a network or a point of connection in the
network”).
6
Appeal 2016-000425
Application 13/154,082
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—4 and 6—58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
7