Ex Parte Zi

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 19, 2014

12411844 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KANG ZI
____________________

Appeal 2012-008866
Application 12/411,844
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 on
February 23, 2015, following our Decision on Appeal mailed December 23,
2014, in which we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–
10, but reversed the rejection of claim 3.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We have reconsidered our Decision on Appeal in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Request and we find no errors. We therefore decline to
change our prior opinion for the following reasons.
2

1
The real party in interest is Huawei Technologies Co. (App. Br. 1).
2
Our Decision on Rehearing refers to the Request for Rehearing filed Feb.
23, 2015 (“Req. Reh’g”), the Decision on Appeal mailed Dec. 23, 2014
Appeal 2012-008866
Application 12/411,844
2
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that a request for rehearing is not an
opportunity for Appellant to reiterate arguments presented in the Briefs that
were fully addressed in the Decision on Appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(f). We
deny the Request for Rehearing for this reason.
Nonetheless, for the sake of completeness, and to the extent helpful in
further prosecution, we address the points Appellant makes in their Request
for Rehearing in the following sections.
1. Alleged Misapprehension or Overlooking of “Bonding Relationship”
Argument in Reply Brief
Appellant avers the Board misapprehended or overlooked arguments
made in the Reply Brief (Req. Reh’g 2). In the Reply Brief, Appellant
argued, even in a case in which a first provider edge device (PE 1)
communicates with a second provider edge device (PE 2) without an
interceding transit node, PE 2 cannot determine the “bonding relationship”
between a first label switch path (LSP 1) and a first pseudowire (PW 1)
because PW1 may actually be bonded with another LSP. Therefore,
Appellant’s argue, Aggarwal fails to teach the claimed limitations for this
reason.
We considered Appellant’s Reply Brief and rejected this argument in
rendering our Decision on Appeal. Assuming Appellant’s scenario
concerning Aggarwal, but in addition, assuming PW 1 is not bonded to
another LSP (e.g., because there are only two PEs in the network), then the
relationship between the LSP 1 and PW 1, sent from PE 1 and received by

(“Dec. on App.”), the Reply Brief filed Mar. 15, 2012 (“Reply Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed May 15, 2012 (“Ans.”), and the Appeal Brief
filed Sept. 14, 2011 (“App. Br.”).
Appeal 2012-008866
Application 12/411,844
3
PE 2, is the “bonding relationship” as Appellant describes and claims it. As
we agree with the Examiner the person of ordinary skill would interpret
Aggarwal’s teachings to include this scenario, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in the rejection for this reason.
Moreover, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The “bonding relationship” is not defined
in the Specification, although it is described as relating an LSP and PW
relative to starting point PE 1 (Spec. ¶ 8, 14–17, 29, 31, 32, 38, 41, 43–48;
claims 1–10). Considering the combined prior art, in a case in which
starting point PE 1 (or node 1) sends PE 2 (or node 2) a communication
containing LSP 1 and PW 1, PE1 has sent and PE 2 has received the
“bonding relationship” as claimed.
Accordingly, we did not misapprehend or overlook Appellant’s
argument concerning the “bonding relationship” in the Reply Brief, and the
Examiner did not err in the rejection.
2. Alleged Misapprehension of “Bonding Relationship” With Respect to
Teaching in Primary Reference
This argument is basically another way of stating the same argument
addressed in Section 1 herein. Specifically, Appellant argues, in Aggarwal,
the egress node cannot determine an LSP according to the LSP label even if
there is no intermediate node between the ingress and egress nodes.
Referring to the following Figure, Appellant argues LSP 1 and LPS 2
Appeal 2012-008866
Application 12/411,844
4

Figure showing three nodes connected by ring communication path
with LSP 1 from node 1 to node 2 and LSP 2 from node 3 to node 2.

share the same path between node 1 and node 2 and are identified by the
same LSP label assigned by node 1. Therefore, Appellant argues node 2
cannot determine whether a packet from node 1 relates to LSP 1 or LSP 2.
Appellant’s scenario is not the Examiner’s interpretation made with
respect to Aggarwal (see, e.g., Ans. 15–16). The Examiner viewed the
teachings of the references in the context of two nodes communicating
without an intermediate node (id.). Appellant’s scenario shows three nodes
in which node 1 is an intermediate node along LSP 2 from node 3 to node 2.
Because Appellant’s scenario falls outside of the Examiner’s framing of the
rejection, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Moreover, the claims are recited in the context of two PEs.
Appellant’s arguments are made in the context of three PEs or nodes. Thus,
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims as
recited, nor do they address the Examiner’s interpretation of the combined
prior art. Accordingly, we deny Appellant’s Request for this additional
reason.

Appeal 2012-008866
Application 12/411,844
5

DECISION
Based on the record before us now and in the original appeal, we are
still of the view that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4–
10.
We have granted the Request to the extent that we have reconsidered
our Decision on Appeal, but we deny the request with respect to making any
changes therein.

DENIED
JRG