Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 13, 2021

2020004170 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2021)

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.
15/724,826 10/04/2017 Ruobin ZHENG 81354284US05 9677
97291 7590 10/13/2021
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Shuang Liu(Huawei ID 00344817)
Building A10-1, Huawei Industrial Base,
Bantian, Longgang District,
Shenzhen, 518129
CHINA
EXAMINER
MOTSINGER, TANYA THERESA NGO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/13/2021 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):
aipatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RUOBIN ZHENG
___________

Appeal 2020-004170
Application 15/724,826
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JAMES B. ARPIN, HUNG H. BUI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–21, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 2.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party-in-interest as Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
December 9, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 15, 2020); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 10, 2019) and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 17, 2020); and the Specification (“Spec.,”
filed October 4, 2017). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and
Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal 2020-004170
Application 15/724,826
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed methods, media, and systems “relate[] to the field
of network communications, and in particular, to a method, an apparatus,
and a system for managing a label of an access network.” Spec. ¶ 2.
As noted above, claims 1–21 are pending. Claims 1, 8, 11, 12, and 17
are independent. Appeal Br. 11 (claim 1), 12–13 (claim 8), 13–14
(claims 11 and 12), 15 (claim 17) (Claims App.). Claims 2–7, 13, and 19
depend directly or indirectly from claim 1; claims 9, 10, 14, and 20 depend
directly from claim 8; claims 15 and 21 depend directly from claim 11;
claim 16 depends directly from claim 12; and claim 18 depends directly
from claim 17. Id. at 11–16.
Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized, is
representative.
1. A method for managing a label of an access network,
comprising:
determining, by a first device, a label of an access segment
Pseudo Wire (PW) for a first user-side port of a second device
having at least two ports, wherein the second device is a user-
side device of the first device, and a user-side end of the access
segment PW is the second device;
establishing a corresponding relationship between an
identifier of the first user-side port of the at least two ports and
the label;
carrying the corresponding relationship between the
identifier of the first user-side port of the at least two ports and
the label in a message;
sending the message to the second device; and
receiving a frame from the second device that is
encapsulated with the label.
Id. at 11 (emphasis added). Each of claims 8, 11, 12, and 17 recites a
Appeal 2020-004170
Application 15/724,826
3

limitation corresponding to the disputed limitation of claim 1. Id. at 12–13,
13–14, 15.
REFERENCE AND REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following reference:
Name3 Reference Published Filed
Zhang US 2009/0208204 A1 Aug. 20, 2009 Oct. 10, 2008
The Examiner rejects claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1,4 as
lacking adequate written description. Final Act. 2–5.
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Appellant and the Examiner focus their contentions and
findings, respectively, on claim 1, so we do as well. See Final Act. 5;
Appeal Br. 9. Because we determine that reversal of the rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the rejection of independent claims 8, 11, 12,
and 17, is dispositive, except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss
claims 2–7, 9, 10, 13–16, and 18–21 further herein. We address the
rejection below.
ANALYSIS
Adequate Written Description
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under

3 The reference citation is to the first named inventor only.
4 The present application “is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application
No.13/337,814, filed on December 27, 2011.” Spec. ¶ 1. Therefore, we
apply the pre-American Inventors Act statutory provision.
Appeal 2020-004170
Application 15/724,826
4

35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as lacking adequate written description. Final Act. 2–
4. Appellant contends, “At issue is whether the specification of the present
application discloses the at least two ports including a user-side port.”
Appeal Br. 7. For the reasons given below, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as lacking adequate written description.
The test for determining compliance with the written description
requirement is whether the disclosure of the application as
originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the
inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject
matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal support in
the specification for the claim language[.] . . . The content of the
drawings may also be considered in determining compliance
with the written description requirement.
In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).
The Examiner finds claim 1 lacks adequate written description in the
Specification for four reasons. We are not persuaded claim 1 lacks adequate
written description by any of these reasons.
First, the Examiner finds:
[Regarding] claim 1, the applicant has amended the claim to
recite “determining, by a first device label on access segment
Pseudo Wire (PW) for a first user-side port of a second device
having a least two ports”. However, the examiner was unable to
find support specifically for the label to be applied to the user-
side port of the second device.
Final Act. 2; Ans. 4.
Specifically, claim 1 recites, “the second device is a user-side device
of the first device, and a user-side end of the access segment [Pseudo Wire
(PW)] is the second device.” Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). The Examiner
finds:
The specification also recites “the user-side PW device
maybe an [Optical Network Unit (ONU)]” [[Spec. ¶ ]0047], such
Appeal 2020-004170
Application 15/724,826
5

that it is understood the device itself is a user-side device.
However, the amended claim limitation specif[ies] that the port
of said device is the user-side port, such that the device is further
connected to a user device that is not part of the network.
However, the specification does not explicitly disclose or specify
that the port is on the user-side of that user-device, but rather
that it is only the port of the user-device. Furthermore, to clarify
the distinction between a user-side device and the user-side port,
it means rather that the device, though connected to user, is also
connected to the network, and the port specifically refers to those
ports that are in transmitting and receiving signals with the user
device.
Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). We disagree with the Examiner.
The Specification discloses:
In the embodiments of the present invention, a mobile
bearer network or a packet bearer network is divided into an
access segment and a core segment, in which a part from a user-
side [Provider Edge (PE)] device to an [Switching Provider
Edge (S-PE)] is the access segment, and a part from the S-PE to
a PE device that is connected to an [Radio Network Controller
(RNC)] and on the other side or to a network-side PE device is
the core segment. When the access segment adopts [Passive
Optical Network (PON)] access, the user-side PE device may be
an ONU; when the access segment adopts Ethernet access, the
user-side PE device may be an Ethernet switch, router, or a
terminal device with an Ethernet port; and when the access
segment adopts [Digital Subscriber Line (DSL)] access, the
user-side PE device herein may be a DSL modem. A location of
an [Optical Line Terminal (OLT)] is equivalent to that of a
Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM). The
access segment being a PON is taken as an example in the
following embodiments, which is similar to a case in which the
access segment is an Ethernet or a DSL.
Spec. ¶ 43 (emphasis added); see Final Act. 2–3. Thus, the Specification
clearly discloses a user-side PE device, e.g., an ONU, at one end of an
access segment and a network side S-PE device, e.g., an OLT, at the other
Appeal 2020-004170
Application 15/724,826
6

end. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 24, 143, Fig. 10 (depicting an ONU(PE) connected
to an PON access segment and a Node B).
Second, claim 1 further recites,
carrying the corresponding relationship between the
identifier of the first user-side port of the at least two ports and
the label in a message;
sending the message to the second device; and
receiving a frame from the second device that is
encapsulated with the label.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds,
the OLT is understood to be the first device, such that the port is
not a user-side port, as a communication between the ONU and
the OLT is a communication within the network, not with the
user, and the encapsulation of the port that has the PW should be
on the network-side, as it is communicating with other network
elements, such as the OLT, and not with the user device.
Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). Thus, because the second device (i.e., the
ONU) receives the label message, e.g., the “label management message” of
Appellant’s Figure 12, from the first device (i.e., the OLT) and the second
device sends an encapsulated frame to the first device; the Examiner finds
that the ONU is not a user-side device, but, instead, is a network-side device.
See Ans. 8.
The Specification discloses:
Therefore, on the data plane, according to an association
relationship between the PW label or the MPLS label and the
port, data entering a specified port is encapsulated into a
frame having the corresponding PW label or the
corresponding MPLS label, or after a frame having the
specified PW label or the specified MPLS label is
decapsulated, data is forwarded by a corresponding port.
Appeal Br. 7–8 (quoting Spec. ¶ 63 (Appellant’s bolding added)). Appellant
contends the Examiner misinterprets the Specification’s disclosure of
Appeal 2020-004170
Application 15/724,826
7

encapsulated and decapsulated and, consequently, misapprehends the
disclosure of “a specified port” and “a corresponding port.” We agree with
Appellant.
The Examiner interprets this disclosure as indicating that data entering
the “specified port” of the second device, i.e., the ONU, is already
encapsulated, and, consequently, the ONU must be a network-side device,
not a user-side device, because only a network-side device is capable of
encapsulating data. Final Act. 4; see Appeal Br. 8 (Appellant summarizes
the Examiner’s finding as follows: “If the specified port was a network-side
port, the data entering the port would be from the network-side and therefore
would already be encapsulated with a PW label. The data would not be
encapsulated into a frame having the PW, but rather would be de-
capsulated.”).
Appellant contends, however, the Specification discloses that data is
encapsulated after it is received by a “specified port,” i.e., a user-side port,
and then is sent to the network-side device. Appeal Br. 8. Specifically,
Appellant contends:
Because the data in paragraph [0063] of the application is
encapsulated into a frame, a person skilled in the art will only
understand the “data entering a specified port” as the to-be-
encapsulated data coming from a user and entering a user-side
port, rather than the encapsulated data, that is one or more PW
frames, coming from a network-side device.
Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added); see Spec., ¶¶ 46, 47, Fig. 8. Thus, Appellant
contends, “The ‘specified port’ is not a network-side port; rather the
‘specified port’ is a user-side port.” Appeal Br. 8. We agree with Appellant.
Third, Appellant amended claim 1 to include the language of the
disputed limitation to overcome the Examiner’s rejection of original claim 1
Appeal 2020-004170
Application 15/724,826
8

as anticipated by Zhang. Amendment, 9–10 (Apr. 30, 2019) (hereinafter
“Amdt.”). In that Amendment, Appellant contends:
Zhang discloses a passive optical network system
including optical line terminal (OLT) connected to a plurality of
optical network units (ONUs). See, Zhang Abstract. The ONU
requests Port-ID from the OLT, and filters downstream data
packets received from the OLT based on the requested Port-ID.
See, Zhang paragraphs [0082]-[0087] and [0111]. It is noted that
Port-ID in Zhang is associated with the logical links between the
OLT and the ONUs. Therefore, Port-ID is an ID associated with
the network side of the ONUs.
Amdt. 10. Appellant further contends that if Zhang’s ONU is alleged to
teach or suggest the second device of the disputed limitation, Zhang’s ONU
then fails to teach or suggest “a first user-side port of a second device.” Id.
Based on the contentions in Appellant’s Amendment, the Examiner
finds Appellant is referring to a “user-side port” that is not part of the ONU
and does not “partake in communications that are between the ONU and the
OLT.” Ans. 8. Further, the Examiner finds Appellant “is unclear what user-
side ports that [Appellant] is referring to that [are] not part of the ONU or
the network side device.” Id. Referring to Zhang’s Figure 13, the Examiner
finds, “the ONU does discloses user side interface that interface with the
port-ID filters such that the Port-IDs do have to deal with the user interface.”
Id.; see id. at 7 (reproducing Zhang’s Fig. 13).
Referring to the Specification’s description of communications
between the OLT and the ONU, the Examiner similarly finds the disclosed
ports and links between the OLT and the ONU are network communications
via network ports, not user side ports. Id. at 8–11 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 25, 63, 64,
66–68, 149, Figs. 2, 12). Yet, as noted above, the Specification’s
paragraph 43 clearly discloses, “a part from a user-side PE device to an S-PE
Appeal 2020-004170
Application 15/724,826
9

is the access segment, and a part from the S-PE to a PE device that is
connected to an RNC and on the other side or to a network-side PE device is
the core segment.” Spec. ¶ 43; see Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543
F.3d 683,689 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“‘[E]ach claim does not necessarily cover
every feature disclosed in the specification. When the claim addresses only
some of the features disclosed in the specification, it is improper to limit the
claim to other, unclaimed features.’”; quoting Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v.
Biogenex Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
As noted above, Appellant contends Zhang’s Port-IDs are associated
with the network-side, not the user-side, and do not teach or suggest the
recited, user-side ports. Amdt. 10 (“Therefore, Port-ID is an ID associated
with the network side of the ONUs.”). In particular, Appellant responds,
with respect to the arguments in Applicant’s response filed on
April 30, 2019, Applicants respectfully submits that it is well-
known to a person skilled in the art that a network device coupled
to a user side and a network side usually has both a user-side port
and a network-side port. Applicant’s response argues that the
“PORT-ID” disclosed in Zhang fails to disclose “a first user-
side port of a second device” as recited in the amended claim 1,
and Zhang fails to disclose “determining, by a first device, a label
of an access segment PW for a first user-side port of a second
device having at least two ports” as recited in the amended
claim 1.
Reply Br. 4 (italics added).
Zhang discloses:
The ONU 104 listens in the service priority request
message from the user 105 and converts the service priority
request message into the Port-ID request according to the
mapping relationship between the service priority and the Port-
ID class described in FIG. 7. The ONU 104 updates the Port-ID
management table 406 and transmits the Port-ID request
message to the OLT 102.
Appeal 2020-004170
Application 15/724,826
10

Zhang ¶ 82 (emphases added); see id. ¶ 84 (describing communication of
Port-ID information between the ONU and OLT). Thus, Zhang discloses
that the Port-ID request message is transmitted from a network-side.
Therefore, on this record, we agree with Appellant that Zhang’s Port-IDs do
not teach or suggest a user-side port, and Appellant’s contentions regarding
Zhang in the Amendment do not contradict Appellant’s contentions
regarding the Specification’s disclosure here.
Fourth, the Specification discloses:
The ONU port information/DSL port information may be an
access loop identifier or a circuit ID. For example, when an
ONU port is an ATM-based DSL, the ONU port information
may be ONU ID atm slot2/port2:vpi.vci, and when the ONU port
is an Ethernet-based DSL, the ONU port information may be
ONU ID eth slot2/port2[:vlan-id], in which ONU ID is an ONU
ID, slot2/port2 is one of or any combination of a chassis number,
a rack number, a frame number, a slot number, a sub-slot
number, and a port number on the ONU, vpi.vci is a Virtual Path
Identifier (VPI) and a Virtual Channel Identifier (VCI) on the
DSL, and VLAN ID is a Virtual Local Area Network (VLAN)
identifier.
Appeal Br. 9 (quoting Spec. ¶ 50 (Appellant’s bolding and underlining
added)). Appellant contends:
DSL, as introduced in paragraph [0050] of the
specification, is an acronym for Digital Subscriber Line. If the
ONU port is a network-side port, the ONU port can never be an
ATM-based DSL or an Ethernet-based DSL as described in
paragraph [0050]. Moreover, a person skilled in the art would
understand that the access loop identifier and circuit ID only
refer to user-side ports of provider edge (PE) devices and atm
slot and eth slot also refer to user-side ports of PE devices.
Appeal Br. 9. Thus, because a subscriber line or an Ethernet connection is
attached on the user-side, Appellant contends the disclosed ONU includes a
user-side port. See also Spec. ¶ 43 (“when the access segment adopts
Appeal 2020-004170
Application 15/724,826
11

Ethernet access, the user-side PE device may be an Ethernet switch, router,
or a terminal device with an Ethernet port; and when the access segment
adopts DSL access, the user-side PE device herein may be a DSL modem”
(emphases added).
The Examiner responds that, despite the Specification’s disclosure,
“these are all ports within the ONU and therefore the logical links are
associated with the ONU such that they are associated with the network side,
as according to the applicant[’]s arguments, not the user side.” Ans. 11.
This response, however, ignores both the deficiencies in the Examiner’s
findings based on Zhang and Appellant’s contentions based on the
Specification’s paragraph 50, not to mention the clear disclosure of the
Specification’s paragraph 43. As such, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s Answer is not responsive to Appellant’s contentions. Reply
Br. 4.
For the reasons given above, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner errs in finding independent claim 1, as well as that of independent
claims 8, 11, 12, and 17, lack adequate written description. Because we are
persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting the independent claims, we do
not sustain the rejection of those claims. Moreover, because the Examiner
rejects the dependent claims solely due to the alleged inadequacy of the
written description of the independent claims, we also do not sustain the
rejection of claims 2–7, 9, 10, 13–16, and 18–21.
DECISION
1. The Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
¶ 1, as lacking adequate written description.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–21 are not unpatentable.
Appeal 2020-004170
Application 15/724,826
12

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1–21.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–21 112 Written Description

1–21

REVERSED