Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

13175580 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/175,580 07 /01/2011
5073 7590
BAKER BOTTS LLP,
2001 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201-2980
08/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
GuoliangWu
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.
064731.0893 2860
EXAMINER
LAM, YEEF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUOLIANG WU, LADAN S. PICKERING, CHENJIANG HU,
SI LONG HO, DAVID TRAYLOR, and RAJNATH SINGH
Appeal2014-008722
Application 13/175,580
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of Claims 1-24. App. Br. 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief, filed February 10, 2014
("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief, filed July 3, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and
the Examiner's Answer, mailed May 8, 2014 ("Ans.").
2 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Fujitsu Limited. App.
Br. 3.
3 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal2014-008722
Application 13/175,580
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method, an article of manufacture, and a switch
for a pair of network switches to adjust transmission of data between them in
the event of a faulty data path. See App. Br. 17-22 (Claims Appendix).
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A method for telecommunications, comprising:
determining an operational state of a first network switch;
determining an operational state of a second network
switch, the second network switch coupled to the first network
switch by a protected path;
determining an existence of an actionable condition;
accessing information on the first network switch by
referencing the operational state of the first netl'Vor,~ svvitch, the
operational state of the second network switch, and the
actionable condition; and
changing the operational state of the first network switch
based upon the information associated with the operational state
of the first network switch, the operational state of the second
network switch, and the actionable condition.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Ding et al.
("Ding")
Ma et al.
("Ma")
US 2011/0128861 Al
US 2012/0182861 Al
2
June 2, 2011
July 19, 2012
Appeal2014-008722
Application 13/175,580
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ma and Ding. Ans. 3-7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions.
Based on Appellants' arguments, the issue presented on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in finding that the proposed combination of Ma
and Ding teaches or suggests accessing information on the first network
switch by referencing the operational state of the second network switch;
and changing the operational state of the first network switch based upon the
operational state of the second network switch, as recited in independent
claims 1, 9, and 17. App. Br. 9-15; Reply Br. 2-5. Appellants contend Ma
teaches that the messages received by the local network element (NE) do not
identify the operational state of the remote far-end NE. App. Br. 10, 11
(citing Ma i-fi-1 69-71 ). Specifically, Appellants characterize the Examiner's
findings in Ma of the "operational state of the second network switch" to be
states such as A, B, and D. App. Br. 10. Appellants note such states are the
ITU-T Recommendations G.8031/Y1342 state transition table states. App.
Br. 13 (quoting ITU-T Recommendations G.8031/Y1342 Table A.I).
Appellants assert the Forced Switch command in Ma sent from the far-end
NE does not identify the operational state of the far-end NE. App. Br. 11
(citing Ma i172), 14; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants state "the issuance of a
'Forced switch' command [in Ma] from the far end to the near end does not
3
Appeal2014-008722
Application 13/175,580
distinguish the far end being in state 'C,' state 'D,' or state 'F."' App. Br.
14--15 (citing Ma Fig. 9); see Reply Br. 3.
In describing the term "operational state," Appellants' Specification
states that "[ s ]uch an operational state may include a state in a state machine,
standing or terminal conditions, and/or configuration as revertive or
nonrevertive." Spec. p. 20, 11. 6-8. The Examiner finds Ma teaches a
Forced Switch is executed to change the state of a local end from a working
entity of the local end to standby and a protection entity of the local end to
active. Ans. 11 (citing Ma i-fi-169, 72,73); Ma i172 ("[The] Forced Switch
command from the local network element has been executed, a working
entity of the local end is standby and that a protection entity of the local end
is active."). Ma teaches the Forced Switch command changes the
operational state of the local end to a standing or terminal condition of the
working entity of the local end to standby and the protection entity of the
local end to active. See Ma i172; Ma i161 ("Force switch normal traffic
signal-to-protection-Forces normal traffic signal to be selected from the
protection transport entity."). Thus, Ma teaches the Forced Switch
command synchronizes the operational state of the local end with that of the
far end to route traffic on the protected entity. Ans. 12 (citing Ma Fig. 9).
Ma teaches this change in the operational state of the local end bridges
traffic on the protection entity so that there is no loss of traffic. See Ans. 12
(citing Ma Fig. 9); Ans. 11 (quoting Ma i173); Ma i173 ("In this way, ...
there will be no unnecessary state transition and no traffic loss.").
Therefore, these portions of Ma teach, or at least suggest, a change in the
operational state of the first switch (local end), such as the standing or
terminal condition of the first switch, based, at least in part, on the
4
Appeal2014-008722
Application 13/175,580
operational state of the second switch. This is consistent with Appellants'
Specification, which states that "a switchback terminal condition may
instruct the near-end switch that the far-end switch is switching back to the
working path." Spec. 18, 11. 19--20.
Regarding the operational state of the near end in Ma in terms of the
ITU-T Recommendations G.8031/Y1342 state transition table states, we are
not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the state of the near end is
changed independent of the state of the far end. App. Br. 14--15 (citing Ma
Fig. 9); see Reply Br. 3. These arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of the claims because Appellants' Specification does not limit the
operational state to the ITU-T Recommendations G.8031/Y1342 state
transition table states. Spec. p. 20, 11. 5-8. As discussed above, Appellants'
Specification describes "operational state" in open, non-limiting terms to
include, among other things, the standing or terminal condition. Id.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 and
of claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-24, which were not argued separately. App.
Br. 15; Reply Br. 5.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
AFFIRMED.
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
5