Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

12106774 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/106,774 04/21/2008
97291 7590 09/21/2016
Huawei Technologies Co,, Ltd,
c/o Wenjun Gu (Huawei ID 00229515)
Building G 1-2, Huawei Industrial Base,
Bantian, Longgang District,
Shenzhen, 518129
CHINA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sulin Yang
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.
0614095US 8403
EXAMINER
PREV AL, LIONEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2475
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
shiming.wu@huawei.com
ltian@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SULIN YANG and LEHONG NIU
Appeal2015-006068
Application 12/106,774
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 53-73. Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal2015-006068
Application 12/106,774
Claims 53, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71, and 72 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Capurso (US
2009/0252491 Al; Oct. 8, 2009) and Davis (US 2005/0058118 Al; Mar. 17,
2005). Non-Final Act. 3---6, 7-9, 10-15.
Claims 54, 61, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Capurso, Davis, and Bridges (US 2007 /0274718 Al; Nov.
29, 2007). Non-Final Act. 6.
Claims 56, 63, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Capurso, Davis, and ITU-T Recommendation G.984.4.
Non-Final Act. 7-8.
Claims 59, 66, and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Capurso, Davis, and Bhatia (US 2002/0131411 A 1; Sept.
19, 2002). Non-Final Act. 9-10.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to virtual local area network (VLAN)
message tagging. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 53 is illustrative and reproduced below:
53. A method for retagging an upstream frame with a VLAN
tag in an optical network termination (ONT) device of a passive
optical network, wherein the ONT device is configured with a
virtual local area network (VLAN) tagging operation
configuration data management entity (ME) which organizes
data associated with VLAN tagging, the method comprises:
receiving an upstream frame having a VLAN tag, which
includes a Tag Control Information (TCI) field with at least a
priority value and a VLAN identifier (VID);
2
Appeal2015-006068
Application 12/106,774
matching both the priority value and the YID in the VLAN
tag with values of a priority field and a VID field within a VLAN
tagging operation table, wherein the VLAN tagging operation
table is an attribute of the VLAN tagging operation configuration
dataME;
based on the matching, identifying a new priority value
and a new VID within a corresponding VLAN priority operation
field and a VID operation field in the VLAN tagging operation
table;
thereafter, adding a new VLAN tag to the received
upstream frame by inserting the new priority value and the new
VID into respective fields of the new VLAN tag; and
sending the upstream frame with the new VLAN tag to an
optical line terminal (OL T) of the passive optical network.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 53, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64, 65, 67,
69, 71, AND 72 OVER CAPURSO AND DAVIS
The Examiner finds Capurso and Davis teach all limitations of claim
53. Non-Final Act. 3---6.
The Examiner finds Capurso's insertion into the header GEMH 1 of the
frame GEMF2 of a value indicative of the precedence of the Ethernet packet
teaches the recited (claim 5 3):
based on the matching, identifying a new priority value
and a new VID within a corresponding VLAN priority operation
field and a VID operation field in the VLAN tagging operation
table;
1 Gigabit Passive Optical Network (GPON) Encapsulation Mode (GEM)
Header. Capurso i-fi-f 11, 15.
2 GEM Frame. Capurso i-fi-f 11, 15.
3
Appeal2015-006068
Application 12/106,774
thereafter, adding a new VLAN tag to the received
upstream frame by inserting the new priority value and the new
VID into respective fields of the new VLAN tag[.]
Non-Final Act. 4--5 (citing Capurso i-fi-192, 96); see also Capurso Figure 4
(insertion of value VG and value pG into header GEMH), i-f l 02 ("VG is a
value indicative of the VLAN Identifier of the Ethernet packet EthP"), and i1
103 ("pG is a value indicative of the Ethernet packet priority value p"); and
Ans. 2-7.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1.
Capurso merely teaches how to map the pG with the priority
value p in the received Ethernet packet, and Capurso fails to
teach how to identify a new priority value for the received
Ethernet packet, based on the mapping results. Similarly,
Capurso also specif[ies] that "VG is a value indicative of the
VLAN identifier of the Ethernet packet EthP." See Capurso, i1
0102, lines 1-2. As such, Capurso fails to teach identifying new
values for the received priority value p and VID in the Ethernet
packet, based on these mapped values.
App. Br. 6.
11. "[T]he mapping table in Davis is used to search a VLAN
identifier that corresponds to the LLID of the upstream packet, and the
mapping table in Davis cannot be used to identify any new priority value or
new VID." App. Br. 7.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' argument (i), we agree with and adopt as our
own the Examiner's finding that Capurso' s value pG discloses the recited
(claim 53) "new priority value" and Capurso's value VG discloses the
recited (claim 53) "new VID." Non-Final Act. 4--5; see also Ans. 4--5.
4
Appeal2015-006068
Application 12/106,774
Further, we also agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
further explanation:
Capurso et al. explains in i-f [0036] that in the prior art the GPON
network is unable to distinguish between GEM frames
transporting Ethernet packets with high and low precedence.
Thus, inserting in a header field of the second data packet a value
indicative of the precedence information as described in Capurso
et al. i-f [0043] constitutes a new priority value and a new VID, as
further explained in Capurso et al. i-f [0048], where it states "the
encapsulating module is adapted to insert in a header field of the
second data packet a value indicative of the precedence
information".
Ans. 4. Put another way, Capurso's values pG and VG are new values in a
new tag as required by claim 53. See Capurso, Figure 4.
Regarding Appellants' argument (ii),
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
Here, the Examiner finds Capurso teaches identifying a new priority
value and a new VID. Non-Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner finds Davis
teaches a table. Non-Final Act. 5-6 (citing Davis i-f 25). We agree with and
adopt these findings as our own. We also agree with and adopt as our own
the Examiner's reason for combining the references:
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to combine a mapping table as taught
by Davis et al. in the system of Capurso et al., by using an ONU
that maintains a similar mapping table as the OLT. The
motivation for having an ONU that maintains a similar mapping
5
Appeal2015-006068
Application 12/106,774
table as the OLT is to further enhance the system reliability and
efficiency by having upstream filtering occurs at an ONU to
support VLAN tagging option also during propagation along the
passive optical network.
Non-Final Act. 5---6; see also Ans. 5---6.
Thus, Appellants' argument (ii) argues Davis individually where the
Examiner has relied on the combined teachings of the references. Thus,
Appellants' argument (ii) does not show any error in the Examiner's
findings or in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 53, as well as
claims 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71, and 72, which are not separately
argued with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 54, 61, AND 68 OVER CAPURSO,
DAVIS, AND BRIDGE
Appellants do not present any additional arguments for the
patentability of claims 54, 61, and 68. See App. Br. 8.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 54, 61, and
68.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 56, 63, AND 70 OVER CAPURSO,
DAVIS, AND ITU-T RECOMMENDATION G.984.4
Appellants do not present any additional arguments for the
patentability of claims 56, 63, and 70. See App. Br. 8.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 56, 63, and
70.
6
Appeal2015-006068
Application 12/106,774
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 59, 66, AND 73 OVER CAPURSO,
DAVIS, AND BHATIA
Appellants do not present any additional arguments for the
patentability of claims 59, 66, and 73. See App. Br. 9.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 59, 66, and
73.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 53-73 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 ).
AFFIRMED
7