Ex Parte Venkataraman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201612850788 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/850,788 08/05/2010 46363 7590 09/01/2016 Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. 12 Christopher Way Suite 105 Eatontown, NJ 07724 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Srikrishnan Venkataraman 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. ALU/807618-US-NP 1531 EXAMINER TSEGA YE, SABA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/01/2016 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): docketing@trbklaw.com ipsnarocp@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SRIKRISHNAN VENKA TARAMAN, KANWAR SINGH, and PRADEEP G. JAIN Appeal2014-008691 Application 12/850,788 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--20, all the pending claims in the present application. Claim 3 is canceled. See App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The present invention relates generally to providing a method for tracing a multicast path from a root node to a leaf node. See Abstract. Appeal2014-008691 Application 12/850,788 Claims l and 13 are illustrative: 1. A method for tracing a multicast path between a root node and a leaf node in a multicast network, comprising: sending, from the leaf node toward the root node, a multicast trace request configured to request that the root node initiate tracing of the multicast path from the root node to the leaf node; and receiving, at the leaf node, a multicast trace response from the root node, wherein the multicast trace response includes path information associated with the multicast path from the root node to the leaf node. 13. A method for tracing a multicast path between a root node and a leaf node of a multicast tree in a multicast network, the method comprising: receiving, at the root node, a multicast trace request comprising an indication of a request by the leaf node for the root node to initiate tracing of the multicast path from the root node to the leaf node; initiating, from the root node based on the multicast trace request, a path trace request adapted for tracing the multicast path from the root node to the leaf node; receiving; at the root node; at least one path trace response associated with the path trace request, wherein the path trace response comprises path information associated with the multicast path; and propagating a multicast trace response toward the leaf node, wherein the multicast trace response includes at least a portion of the path information from the at least one path trace response. Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1, 2, and 4--20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Farinacci (US 2006/0203819 Al, Sep. 14, 2006) and Desineni (US 2003/0145105 Al, July 31, 2003). 2 Appeal2014-008691 Application 12/850,788 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, and 4-12 Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited combination, particularly Desineni, teaches or suggests a request that the root node initiate tracing of the multicast path from the root node to the leaf node, as set forth in claim 1 ? Appellants contend "this portion of Desineni [cited by the Examiner] indicates that the trace request received by the ingress node merely causes the ingress node to reply with path information ... the trace in Desineni is performed via the propagation of the trace request in the upstream direction from the downstream node" (App. Br. 14) (emphasis omitted). Appellants further contend that "the trace reply of Desineni is merely a reply that includes the results of the trace that is performed in the upstream direction from the downstream node to the ingress node" (Reply Br. 3). The Examiner finds that Appellants' "claims['] breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Appellants' disclosure ... limitations appearing in the specification but not in the claim are not read into the claim" (Ans. 9). The Examiner further finds that "Desineni discloses (see Fig. 2) that egress node (leaf node) sends a trace request to ingress node (root node). . .. The trace reply initiates a trace back mechanism from the ingress node (root node) to the egress node (leaf node)" (id.). We agree with the Examiner. For example, Desineni discloses that "the present invention determines the up-line nodes from the subject node 200 and sends a trace request 206 to each of the up-line nodes, e.g., intermediate node 202 . .. which can be the ingress node 204" (see i-f 24; see also Fig. 2). In other 3 Appeal2014-008691 Application 12/850,788 words, Desineni's trace request is sent from the subject node 200 (i.e., leaf node) to the ingress node 204 (i.e., root node), albeit through an intermediate node 202. We note that claim 1 does not prohibit the trace request from traversing intermediate nodes (see claim 1 ). Desineni further discloses that "[a ]t each ingress node 204, the trace request 208 is processed to create a trace reply or response 210, which is sent to the down-line node ... The trace reply 210 contains various information or attributes about the one or more paths" (see i-f 25). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Desineni's trace reply initiates a trace back mechanism from the ingress node (root node) to the egress node (leaf node) (see Ans. 9). We further find that even if we assume (without deciding) that a trace in Desineni is performed via the propagation of the trace request in the upstream direction from the downstream node, as proffered by Appellants (see App. Br. 14), the Examiner has shown that Desineni also initiates a trace back mechanism from the root node to the leaf node (see Fig. 2; see also i-f 25). Claim 1 is not limited to a single trace being performed, only that the root node initiate tracing from the root node to the leaf node. Desineni' s trace reply 210 is consistent with initiating tracing from the root node to the leaf node (see Desineni's Fig. 2). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 12 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2 and 4--11. See App. Br. 12-16. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 5-12. 4 Appeal2014-008691 Application 12/850,788 Claims 13-20 Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined cited art, particularly Desineni, teaches or suggests receiving, at the root node, both a multicast trace request and at least one path trace response, as set forth in claim 13? Appellants contend that "the Examiner's assertion that a single message type of Desineni discloses two different message types of Appellants' claim 13 is impermissible ... [does not] discloses both the path trace request and the multicast trace response of Appellants' claim 13" (App. Br. 18) (emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellants. Here, the Examiner finds that in Desineni "the trace replies are used for both the path trace request and the trace response" (Ans. 12). The Examiner further finds "that 'the initiation of the trace back mechanism' taught by Desineni is a path trace reply that includes the trace request adapted for tracing the path from the root node to the leaf node via intermediate nodes" (id.). However, we find that the Examiner fails to illustrate receiving, at the root node, both (1) a trace request and (2) at least one path trace response, as required by claim 13. Although we agree with the Examiner that the broadly recited claim 13 does not preclude using a single message type for both a trace request and a trace response (see Ans. 12), the Examiner merely directs our attention to Desineni' s "trace reply" from the ingress node (root node) to the egress node (leaf node) as reading on the aforementioned claim limitations. However, claim 13 requires that the trace request/response be received at the root node, not sent from the root node, as proffered by the Examiner. 5 Appeal2014-008691 Application 12/850,788 We are therefore constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 13, and claims 14--20 for similar reasons. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection. We, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 13 and 20, or the rejection of claims 14--19 which are dependent on claim 13. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 13-20. We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--12. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation