Peter Ger¿ Bal¿zs et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 31, 2019

14369322 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

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.
14/369,322 06/27/2014 Peter Gerö Balázs 4015-8935 / P35081-US1 7958
24112 7590 10/31/2019
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
ZHANG, RUIHUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER GERÖ BALÁZS, JÁNOS FARKAS, LÁSZLÓ MOLNÁR,
PANAGIOTIS SALTSIDIS, and BALÁZS VARGA

Appeal 2018-007939
Application 14/369,322
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.

LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 50–74. Claims 1–49 have been
canceled. See Appeal Br. 18–23 (Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007939
Application 14/369,322

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to “network interconnection
techniques” and, in particular, “a technique for handling a status change in
an interconnect node.” Spec. 1:7–9. Claim 50, which is illustrative of the
claimed invention, reads as follows:
50. A method for status change handling in an interconnect
node, wherein the method is performed in the interconnect node
and comprises:
receiving, by the interconnect node and from another
node, a first indication of a given service for which a change has
been or is about to be performed, the given service having a data
plane that is active in the interconnect node and passive in the
other node as a backup to the active data plane;
exchanging data plane roles with the other node, the
exchanging comprising passivating the data plane of the
interconnect node, by the interconnect node and in response to
receiving the first indication, the passivating comprising
selectively changing the data plane of the interconnect node from
active status to passive status with respect to the given service;
transmitting, upon completion of the passivating of the
data plane of the interconnect node, a second indication of the
passive status of the data plane of the interconnect node with
respect to the given service from the interconnect node to the
other node.

Rejections
Claims 50, 52–62, 64–67, 70, 71, 73, and 74 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Singh et al.
(US 2012/0315030 A1; published Dec. 13, 2012) (“Singh”) and Maione et
Appeal 2018-007939
Application 14/369,322

3
al. (US 2009/0245496 A1; published Oct. 1, 2009) (“Maione”). Final
Act. 2–19.
Claim 51 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Singh, Maione, and Wray (US
2004/0100971 A1; published May 27, 2004). Final Act. 19–20.
Claims 68 and 72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Singh, Maione, and Farkas et al. (US
2008/0291822 A1; published Nov. 27, 2008) (“Farkas”). Final Act. 20–21.
Claim 63 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Singh, Maione, and Sajassi et al. (US
2010/0157793 A1; published June 24, 2010) (“Sajassi”). Final Act. 21.
Claim 69 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Singh, Maione, and Hu et al. (US
2013/0114394 A1; published May 9, 2013) (“Hu”). Final Act. 22.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the combination of Singh and Maione fails to
teach or suggest “exchanging data plane roles with the other node,” as
recited in claim 50. Appeal Br. 8–13; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant argues
“although Singh teaches a node 102 that can switch which of two paths is
active, the nodes 102 are not taught or suggested to switch roles with each
other, and particularly not with respect to a data plane of a given service,” as
required by claim 50. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant further argues:
When Singh changes which path is the active path, this putative
“switching” does nothing with respect to that node’s role, as
both nodes continue to have an active data plane for all
traffic regardless of the service. In other words, the fact that
Appeal 2018-007939
Application 14/369,322

4
the nodes each use a different path does not change the role of
either of the nodes themselves (i.e., as active or passive for a
given service), much less teach or suggest an exchange of roles
between the two.
Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant argues Singh’s network interfaces 106 do not teach or
suggest the disputed limitation because:
a. One of ordinary skill understands the difference between
a network node (of which an interconnect node is a special type)
and a network interface;
b. The Singh network interfaces do not perform both the
claimed receiving/transmitting and exchanging steps even if they
were (arguendo) reasonable to construe as the claimed
interconnect node (which they are not); and
c. The Office improperly construes the interconnect node to
be either a Singh network interface or a Singh network element
depending on whether the exchanging or the
receiving/transmitting feature is being discussed.
Appeal Br. 10.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. With respect to the
claimed “receiving,” the Examiner initially relied upon Singh’s network
elements for teaching the claimed “interconnect node” and “another node.”
Final Act. 2 (“[S]ee Fig. 1, wherein one of network elements 102 can be the
interconnect node and other [network element] is another node.” (emphasis
omitted)). We agree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 9) that although Singh
teaches that a network element can switch which of two paths is active
(Singh ¶ 24), Singh does not teach that the network elements switch roles
with each other, as required by claim 50. Instead, Singh teaches “network
elements 102 may be communicatively coupled to each other through a
Appeal 2018-007939
Application 14/369,322

5
linearly protected switching connection” and “[t]he linearly protected
switching connection may comprise a working path 118 and a protection
path 120.” Singh ¶ 23.
With respect to the claimed “exchanging,” the Examiner relies upon
Singh’s network interfaces for teaching the claimed “interconnect node” and
“another node.” Final Act. 3 (“[S]ee Fig. 1, wherein each interface 106 is
considered a node facing to another node of another network element.”
(emphasis omitted)); Ans. 3–4. The Examiner finds Singh’s interfaces
perform the claimed “receiving” and “transmitting” because “Singh’s
transmission path is bi-directional, wherein the working path (as active data
plane) and the protection path (as passive data plane or backup) are inter-
switchable to change the status or roles.” Ans. 5 (citing Singh ¶ 24) (internal
citation omitted). We disagree.
Singh teaches “[i]n the event of a failure in working path 118, each
network element 102 may switch traffic to protection path 120 after a period
of time defined by the hold off time.” Singh ¶ 31. As such, Singh teaches or
suggests that upon a failure in the working path, interfaces associated with
the working path exchange roles with interfaces associated with the
protection path. However, Singh does not teach that an interface associated
with the protection path receives an indication from an interface associated
with the working path. Instead, Singh teaches that “protection switching
synchronization between network elements 102 may be maintained via
communication of suitable messages . . . communicated between network
elements 102 via protection path 120.” Singh ¶ 25. As such, we agree with
Appellant (Appeal Br. 12) that Singh fails to teach that the interfaces
perform the claimed “receiving” and “transmitting.”
Appeal 2018-007939
Application 14/369,322

6
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 50;
independent claims 70, 71, 73, and 74, which recite corresponding
limitations; and claims 52–62 and 64–67, which depend from claim 50.
Claims 51, 63, 68, 69, and 72 depend, directly or indirectly, from
claims 50 and 71. These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Singh, Maione, and various additional references. See Final
Act. 19–22. The Examiner does not find that these additional references
cure the deficiencies noted above with respect to claim 50. Accordingly, we
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 51, 63, 68, 69, and 72.
We do not reach Appellant’s further allegations of error because we
find the issue discussed above to be dispositive of the rejection of all the
pending claims.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 50–74 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
50, 52–62,
64–67, 70,
71, 73, 74
103(a) Singh, Maione 50, 52–62,
64–67, 70,
71, 73, 74
51 103(a) Singh, Maione, Wray 51
68, 72 103(a) Singh, Maione, Farkas 68, 72
63 103(a) Singh, Maione, Sajassi 63
69 103(a) Singh, Maione, Hu 69
Appeal 2018-007939
Application 14/369,322

7
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
50–74

REVERSED