Ex Parte Wang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2012

10360680 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GUO-QIANG WANG
____________

Appeal 2010-004510
Application 10/360,680
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before, THU A. DANG, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and JAMES R.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004510
Application 10/360,680

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 43-56. Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
We reverse.

Introduction
The invention is directed to an optical switching node for connection
to other switching nodes in an optical network. Appeal Brief 6.

Illustrative Claim
43. A method of establishing a connection along a path in a
communications network, the communications network comprising a
plurality of switching nodes interconnected by optical links, the path being
defined between a first one of the switching nodes and a second one of the
switching nodes via at least one intermediate switching node, the at least one
intermediate switching node being disposed between a respective first link
and a respective second link of the path, the method comprising, at the at
least one intermediate switching node:
- maintaining an association between the respective first link and a
respective first wavelength, the first wavelength being available on the
respective first link;
- receiving a message from a one of: the second one of the switching
nodes and another intermediate switching node, the message indicative of an
association between the respective second link and a respective second
wavelength, the respective second wavelength being available on the
Appeal 2010-004510
Application 10/360,680

3
respective second link;
- mapping the combination of the respective first link and the
respective first wavelength to the combination of the respective second link
and the respective second wavelength; and
- storing the result of mapping in a memory element.

Rejections on Appeal1
Claims 43-48 and 50-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Chang (U.S. Patent Number 6,111,673; issued August
29, 2000). Answer 4-8.
Claim 56 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang. Answer 8-9.
Claims 49, 54, and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chang in view of M. W. Maeda, "Management and
control of transparent optical networks," 16 IEEE Journal of Selected Areas
in Communications, 1008-1023, September 1998.

Issue on Appeal
Does Chang teach a method for establishing a connection along a path
in a communications network wherein the method is performed at the

35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection has been withdrawn. Answer 3.

Appeal 2010-004510
Application 10/360,680

4
intermediate switching node located in a path between first and second node
within the communications network?

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Chang does not anticipate the invention because
Chang does not teach what route the routing information takes in reaching a
network element. Appeal Brief 14. Appellant further argues:

It is certainly not inherent or necessary that a network element
receives the routing table information from a network element
that reads on the "second switching node" or "[other]
intermediate switching node" in the path
recited in Claim 43.

Second, Claim 43 recites a method whose steps are
performed at the intermediate switching node. Among those
steps are (i) maintaining an association between a first link and
a first wavelength available on the first link, and (ii) mapping
the combination of the first link and the first wavelength to a
combination of a second link and a second wavelength. As
Chang describes in column 11, lines 25-45, it is NC&M, rather
than the network elements, that determines the connectivity and
available wavelengths in network elements. The NC&M then
distributes global routing tables to the network elements for
their use in routing packets.
Appeal Brief 14-15.
The Examiner indicates that there is a "new matter" problem with
claim 43; however, there is not a rejection before us based upon the
existence of a new matter issue. See Answer 13. The Examiner finds, in
regard to claim 43, that:

[T]he claim merely requires that the message received by an
Appeal 2010-004510
Application 10/360,680

5
intermediate node is from a second node and another
intermediate node, and the message is indicative of an
association between the respective second link and a respective
second wavelength, the respective second wavelength being
available on the respective
second link. The claim is silent on how the message is
transmitted or directed to the intermediate node. Please note
that a "message" is a very broad terminology in the filed [sic]
of communications, therefore, Claim 43 is a very broad claim.
Answer 13-14.

The Examiner further finds that:

It is crystal clear that a mediate node of Chang receives a
message originated from a second node and another
intermediate node through NC&M 220, and the message is
indicative of an association between the respective second link
and a respective second wavelength, the respective second
wavelength being available on the respective second link. In
other words, Chang not only discloses receiving message in an
intermediate node from a second node and another
intermediate node, but also discloses how the message is
received.
Answer 15.

Appeal 2010-004510
Application 10/360,680

6
Figure 2 of Chang is reproduced below:

Figure 2 discloses the optical layer of a network displaying the
relationship between the optical signal header and data payload,
and the use of the header/payload in the network setup. Chang,
Column 6, lines 30-33.

Appellant contends:
The Appellant's first contention is that there is no teaching
in Chang of the route that routing table information takes in
traveling from Network Control & Management (NC&M)
element 220 to the switching nodes 121-125 along the logical
connections 221 and 222. Therefore, Chang does not identically
show every element of the invention of Claim 43, arranged as
they are in the claim, as required to establish anticipation under
§ 102. In disagreeing with the Appellant's contention, [t]he
Examiner states that "the claim merely requires that the
Appeal 2010-004510
Application 10/360,680

7
message received by an intermediate node is from a second
node and another intermediate node." Examiner's Answer, page
13, last paragraph. Such an assertion appears to disregard the
context of the claim language. In the context of Claim 43, the
message is not received from any second node or any
intermediate node, but from the second node in the recited path
or from another intermediate node in that same recited path.
As such, the Examiner assertion that "[a]nyone of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that the logical connections are
physically realized by transmitting messages between the nodes
in the network" (Examiner's Answer, page 15, last paragraph)
does not establish that Chang identically shows every element
of the invention of Claim 43, arranged as they are in the claim,
as required to establish anticipation under § 102.

The Appellant's second contention is that Claim 43 recites a
method whose steps are performed at an intermediate switching
node in a path between first and second nodes in a
communication network, while the Examiner relies upon
actions performed by a Network Control & Management
separate from the switching nodes of Chang's network. The
Examiner has not indicated disagreement with Appellant's
contention and, therefore, has acknowledged that Chang does
not identically show every element of the invention of Claim
43, arranged as they are in the claim, as required to establish
anticipation under § 102.
Reply Brief 2-3.
We find Appellant's arguments to be persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that the terminology "message" is broad and should be interpreted
accordingly. See Answer 14. However, we find the excerpts from Chang
relied upon by the Examiner (Answer 14-15) do not anticipate claim 43
because claim 43 recites, with specificity, that the methods of establishing a
connection along a path in a communications network refer to the
intermediate switching node within the path. We do not agree with the
Appeal 2010-004510
Application 10/360,680

8
Examiner's broad interpretation that "the message received by an
intermediate node is from a second node and another intermediate node"
(Answer 13) because of the claim’s specificity. We reverse the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of independent claim 43, as well as, independent claim
53 which recite limitations commensurate in scope. We reverse the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 44-52 and 54-56 for the same
reasons stated above, none of the references cited address the noted
deficiency of Chang.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 43-56 are reversed.

REVERSED

peb