Ex Parte WU

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2018

15045674 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 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.
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