Ex Parte WUDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 12, 201815045674 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 15/045,674 02/17/2016 Zong Liang WU 29264US02 9225 23446 7590 03/14/2018 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 EXAMINER AMBAYE, MEWALE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2469 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2018 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): mhmpto @ mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZONG LIANG WU Appeal 2017-007926 Application 15/045,674 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 12 and 23—41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies Entropic Communications, LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-007926 Application 15/045,674 Introduction2 Appellant describes the invention as “relating] generally to communication networks, and more particularly, some embodiments relate to scheduling or reservation mechanisms to improve bandwidth utilization and Quality of Service of the networks.” Spec. 11. Appellant explains that in conventional home networks such as a Multimedia over Coax Alliance (MoCA) network “it is possible to encounter situations where traffic remains untagged or where traffic is improperly tagged,” and “in some applications, it may be desirable to provide a higher level of service to certain nodes.” Id. at 121, 22. Claim 12 is illustrative of the claims on appeal: 12. A network controller, the network controller comprising: a communication processor and a computer executable program code embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium, the executable program code configured to cause the computer processor of the network controller to perform the operations of the executable program code comprising: discovering a plurality of devices; classifying each of the plurality of devices according to a device priority, the device priority being one of a plurality of priority levels', assigning a node priority to each of the plurality of network nodes, where the node priority for a given node is assigned based on the classification of that node; 2 Throughout this decision we refer to: the Specification filed Feb. 17, 2016 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed July 14, 2016 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action mailed Sept. 26, 2016 (“Adv. Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 21, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed Mar. 8, 2017 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed May 3, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appeal 2017-007926 Application 15/045,674 receiving communication requests from one or more devices of the plurality of devices, wherein each communication request requires bandwidth; and assigning one or more time slots in an upcoming communication window to the one or more devices in response to the communication requests by: identifying one or more communication requests from a device having a highest priority level, determining a bandwidth availability for the device having the highest priority level, and allocating bandwidth to the one or more devices of the plurality of devices in response to the communication requests, the bandwidth allocation being based on the device priority, wherein the device having the highest priority level is allocated bandwidth according to a quantified measure of quality, wherein the one or more devices other than the device having the highest priority level are not allocated bandwidth according to the quantified measure of quality. App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x) (disputed limitation emphasized). Rejections Claims 12,3 23—27, 29-37, and 39-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2010/0082791 Al; Apr. 1, 2010) and Hyslop et al. (US 2008/0192752 Al; Aug. 14, 2008). Final Act. 4—16. Claims 28 and 38 stand rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over Liu, Hyslop, and Udani (US 8,584,197 B2; Nov. 12, 2013). Final Act. 17. 3 In rejecting claim 12, the Examiner finds Liu discloses the disputed limitation of “classifying each of the plurality of devices according to a device priority,” as recited, and Hyslop suggests it. Final Act. 5, 7 (citing Liu H27—28, Fig. 4A; Hyslop 129, Fig. 1). In a subsequent Advisory Action, the Examiner additionally finds Hyslop also discloses the disputed limitation. Adv. Act. 4 (citing Hyslop H 63—64). 3 Appeal 2017-007926 Application 15/045,674 ANALYSIS Appellant contends that while Liu teaches a network controller that uses multiple, individually prioritized queues for the types of traffic in a network, the prioritizing of multiple sub-queues of different types of traffic from a device does not teach classifying the device itself, as recited. Id. at 5—7. Appellant further contends that although Hyslop discloses classifying network segments into three different categories, network categories do not correspond to device priorities. Id. at 7—10. With respect to Liu, the Examiner responds by finding that because different types of devices can generate different priority DTRs, priorities of the DTR queues in Liu correspond to the priorities of the devices. Ans. 23 (citing Liu 26—27, Figs. 2, 4A). Appellant replies that “[t]he prioritization of traffic, however, is not equivalent to [classifying according to] device priority.” Reply Br. 3. We agree with Appellant. Liu’s system operates based on the priority of DTRs, irrespective of any priority of a transmitting device. See Liu ]ff[ 26—29. Although as the Examiner finds, and we agree, particular devices or device types may correlate to particular priority levels of DTRs, a happenstance correlation by itself does not teach or suggest a specific algorithmic step performed by a processor, i.e., classifying each of the plurality of devices. Here, precluding classification of devices according to device priorities with Liu’s system would not change how Liu’s system performs. In other words, Liu teaches a system that functions properly without claim 12’s recited classifying step. Id. Thus, the Examiner does not sufficiently articulate why an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand a possible priority correlation between Liu’s devices and DTRs teaches the disputed classifying limitation. 4 Appeal 2017-007926 Application 15/045,674 With respect to Hyslop, the Examiner responds that its disclosure of categorization of nodes according to their status as known to a network controller teaches classifying devices according to device priority. Ans. 23 (citing Hyslop ^fl[ 29-30). Hyslop discloses that a network controller classifies nodes into three node categories: (1) “network nodes that have yet to be specified,” (2) “network nodes that have been identified . . . but from which the [network controller] has yet to receive a [rjesponse,” and (3) “network nodes from which [the network controller] has received a [rjesponse.” Hyslop 129. The Examiner finds “category 3 has the highest priority . . . since the [network controller] node has already received a response.” Ans. 23. Appellant replies that the Examiner’s finding “is merely hindsight and not taught by Hyslop.” Reply Br. 5 (explicitly standing on Appellant’s earlier, more detailed argument that Hyslop’s categories do not fairly map to device priorities (see App. Br. 7—10)). We agree with Appellant. Hyslop’s node categorization tracks the communication status of nodes, which is independent of other aspects of the nodes, including any relative priority of the nodes. See Hyslop ^fl[ 29-32. According to the Examiner’s finding, all nodes in Hyslop in successful communication with the network controller would have the same priority. This is inconsistent with Hyslop’s disclosure of prioritizing the network traffic using the Quality of Service (QoS) functionality. See id. ^fl[ 20-21. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in finding Hyslop’s node categorization teaches or suggests classifying devices according to a device priority. The Examiner also responds that a “different embodiment of Hyslop” separately discloses classifying nodes based on whether they support 5 Appeal 2017-007926 Application 15/045,674 parameterized QoS (pQoS).4 Ans. 24 (citing Hyslop ]Hf 64—65) (finding nodes that implement pQoS have a higher device priority than non-pQoS enabled nodes). Appellant replies that the Examiner misconstrues Hyslop, because it teaches classifying networks, not devices, based on such node functionality. Reply Br. 6. We again agree with Appellant. Hyslop teaches using QoS/pQoS for segmenting a network and does not identify any functionality dependent on classifying device priorities. See 64—65. We note also Hyslop’s pQoS- related functionality for segmenting a network is not, as the Examiner indicates, a “different embodiment” from Hyslop’s node categorization functionality discussed above. The pQoS and node categorization-related disclosures of Hyslop are separate functions of a single system. See id. 120. Similar to the discussion above for the possible correlation between DTRs and devices or types of devices, it is possible to correlate pQoS or non-pQoS capability with devices or types of devices. Also similarly, any such correlation is immaterial to the functioning of Hyslop’s system and amounts to a happenstance that, by itself, does not teach or suggest classifying devices according to a device priority performed by a processor, as recited. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in finding Hyslop’s pQoS-related disclosure teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Thus, we agree with Appellant that neither Liu nor Hyslop teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. There is no finding or explanation that the 4 Parameterized Quality of Service (pQoS), which is disclosed in Liu, Hyslop, and Appellant’s Specification, is a feature of a technical specification used to ensure provision of predetermined data rates. 6 Appeal 2017-007926 Application 15/045,674 combined disclosures of Liu and Hsylop teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 12. Similar to claim 12’s network controller that requires classifying devices according to device priority, independent claim 32 recites a network device with requirements, inter alia, a processor for identifying and distinguishing between low and high priority devices. App. Br. 20 (Claims App ’x). The Examiner rejects claim 32 using essentially the same findings for these requirements as for claim 12, and Appellant argues the Examiner errs for essentially the same reasons as discussed above. See Final Act. 5, 10; App. Br. 5—12. Thus, for the same reasons as for claim 12, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claim 32. There is no finding in the rejections of dependent claims 23—31 or 33— 41 that cures the deficiency in the rejections of the independent claims. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections of claims 23—31 and 33—41. DECISION For the above reasons, we the reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 12 and 23—41. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation