Robert J. Donaghey

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 29, 2019

15385397 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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.
15/385,397 12/20/2016 Robert J. Donaghey 0049-US-C2 7177
83579 7590 11/29/2019
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
EXAMINER
PREVAL, LIONEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2019 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):
patent.docketing@level3.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT J. DONAGHEY
Appeal 2019-000051
Application 15/385,397
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2019-000051
Application 15/385,397
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application.3,4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
PRIOR APPEAL
This Application was subject to a prior appeal 2015-002781, decided
on October 20, 2016 (our “prior Decision”), in which this panel of the Board
affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of all of the claims then pending before
us.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to implementing second-link routing in packet
switched networks. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed
limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

1 We refer to the Specification, filed December 20, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action, mailed November 6, 2017 (“Non-Final Act.”); Appeal Brief,
filed April 6, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 27,
2018 (“Ans.”).
2 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 Level 3
Communications, LLC, a subsidiary of CentruryLink, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
3 Although claim 2 as filed was dependent from claim 1, Appellant’s Claims
Appendix (Appeal Br. 15) indicates original claim 2 is dependent from claim
“0”.
4 The application omits claims numbered 11 and 12, including only claims
1–10, 13, and 14. Furthermore, claims 13 and 14 are indicated to be
dependent from the non-existent claim 12. See Appeal Br. 18, Claims
Appendix.
Appeal 2019-000051
Application 15/385,397
3
1. A packet-based network comprising:
a first gateway node communicatively coupled between a
first routing node and a first local area network (LAN);
a second gateway node communicatively coupled
between a second routing node and a second LAN; and
at least one virtual circuit established between the first
gateway node and the second gateway node operable to
communicate Internet Protocol (IP) traffic between the first LAN
and the second LAN, wherein the virtual circuit is identified in
memory of the first gateway node using information received
from the first routing node, the information comprising a virtual
circuit identifier associated with the second gateway node,
wherein the at least one virtual circuit is identified in
memory of the second gateway node using information received
from the second routing node, the information comprising a
virtual circuit identifier associated with the first gateway node,
wherein each of the first and second routing nodes and the
first and second gateway nodes each include a gateway
forwarding table for storing the virtual circuit identifiers
associated with each of the gateway nodes.
REFERENCES 5
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Suzuki
Storr
US 5,463,621
US 6,633,543 B1
Oct. 31, 1995
Oct. 14, 2003

REJECTION
Claims 1–14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Storr
and Suzuki.6 Final Act. 5–14.

5 All citations herein to these references are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
6 See fn. 4.
Appeal 2019-000051
Application 15/385,397
4
ANALYSIS
Except as noted, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2–14) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–7) and concur with
the findings of and conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following for emphasis.
The Examiner finds Storr discloses all of the limitations of claim 1
(including the disputed limitation) except that the reference is deficient in
that it “does not expressly teach using information received from the first
routing node and using information received from the second routing node.”
Final Act. 7. The Examiner applies Suzuki for curing the noted deficiencies
of Storr. Id. In connection with the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds
the limitation is taught or suggested by Storr’s disclosure of each
asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) switch maintaining a translation table
used to translate a cell’s virtual path identifier/virtual circuit identifier
(VPI/VCI) values as the cell is transported through the switch. Id. (citing
Storr, col. 3, ll. 34–37).
Appellant contends Storr is deficient as failing to disclose routing
tables in the gateway nodes (i.e., in addition to in the routing nodes):
Storr fails to mention or even infer that its network access
equipment (allegedly, gateway nodes) maintain any type of table
- let alone a “gateway forwarding table for storing the virtual
circuit identifiers,” as included in the gateway nodes of claim 1.
Instead, Storr merely indicates that its ATM switches 131–134
within ATM network 130 maintain a translation table, which are
neither routing nodes nor gateway nodes.
Appeal 2019-000051
Application 15/385,397
5
Appeal Br. 8–9. Addressing Storr’s ATM switch translation table used to
translate VPI/VCI values, Appellant argues “even if, arguendo, Starr’s
translation table and VPI/VCI translation information teach or suggest the
claimed ‘gateway forwarding table,’ neither are included in Starr’s network
access equipment 101 (allegedly ‘a first gateway node’) and network access
equipment 103 (allegedly ‘a second gateway node’), as required by the
claims.” Id. at 10.
The Examiner responds, alleging the combination of Storr and Suzuki
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 3–4. In particular, the
Examiner finds Storr discloses VPI/VCI information transmitted by ATM
cells is used to identify data sources and destinations in an ATM network.
Id. at 3–4. According to the Examiner, each ATM switch maintains a
translation table used to track and translate VPI/CI values. Id. at 4. The
Examiner further finds:
Suzuki is directed to decentralizing the VCI assignment function
to a plurality of line interface units, and discloses in Col 1, lines
14 – 19 that an ATM connection is first established in each node
in a header translation table according to the destination of the
call before data transfer begins; and in lines 51 – 55 that [“]Each
interface unit includes a memory for storing the VCIs pre-
assigned to the outgoing lines, and a header translation table for
defining relationships between a set of incoming VCIs and a
corresponding set of outgoing VCIs.[”]
Id. (emphasis added by Examiner). The Examiner concludes “the
combination of the cited references teaches, suggest[s] or discloses each
of the first and second routing nodes and the first and second gateway nodes
each include a gateway forwarding table for storing the virtual circuit
identifiers associated with each of the gateway nodes.” Id.
Appeal 2019-000051
Application 15/385,397
6
Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
As explained by the Examiner (Final Act. 2–4 citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986); Ans. 4), the rejection is based on the combination of Storr
and Suzuki, Storr as disclosing the ATM switch maintaining a translation
table, and Suzuki decentralizing VCI assignment to line interface units (i.e.,
the recited gateway nodes) including storing VCI pre-assignments and a
header translation table at the interface units. Thus, Appellant’s individual
attack against the references fails to rebut the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Storr and Suzuki teaches or suggests the disputed
requirement that the first and second gateway nodes each include a gateway
forwarding table for storing the virtual circuit identifiers associated with
each of the gateway nodes.
For the reasons discussed, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Storr and Suzuki together with the
rejection of dependent claims 2–4 that are not argued separately with
particularity.7 Because Appellant’s arguments presented in connection with
independent claim 10 are substantially the same as those presented in
connection with independent claim 1, we similarly sustain the rejection of
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Storr and Suzuki together with the
rejection of dependent claims 13 and 14 that are not argued separately with
particularity.8

7 For purposes of this appeal, we consider claim 2 as dependent from claim
1.
8 For purposes of this appeal, we consider claims 13 and 14 as dependent
from claim 10.
Appeal 2019-000051
Application 15/385,397
7
Appellant further contests the rejection of independent claim 5,
arguing “Storr and Suzuki, alone or in any combination, do not teach or
suggest at least ‘updating the virtual channel table at the node with one or
more changes to the virtual channels associated with the one or more
gateways’ as recited in claim 1 [recte 5].” Appeal Br. 12.
Addressing the argued updating limitation, the Examiner finds (i)
Storr discloses each ATM switch maintains a translation table used to track
and translate a cell’s VPI/VCI values (i.e., updates a virtual channel table)
and (ii) Suzuki discloses decentralizing the VCI assignment function from
the ATM network to the interface units and updating of a translation table.
Final Act. 10–11. Thus, the Examiner finds the combination of Storr and
Suzuki teaches or suggests the disputed updating limitation. Id.
Appellant argues Suzuki is deficient in disclosing “a single type of
networking node called an ‘interface unit’ that stores and assigns VCIs. In
contrast, the claims require for two distinct types of networking nodes
called ‘[a] node’ and ‘a gateway[]’.” Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner responds, explaining Storr’s ATM switches maintain a
translation table, thereby teaching or suggesting the node of claim 5. Ans. 5.
Suzuki’s teaching of decentralizing the VCI function to interface units in
combination with Storr’s network access equipment teaches the gateway of
claim 5. Id. The Examiner further finds Suzuki’s disclosure of using VCI
and output port information to update a header translation table teaches the
recited table updating functionality. Id. Thus, the combination of Storr and
Suzuki teaches or suggests the disputed updating limitation. Id.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We agree with the Examiner that Storr teaches a translation table at a
Appeal 2019-000051
Application 15/385,397
8
network node. For the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1,
the combination of Storr and Suzuki teaches or suggests including a
translation table at network access equipment, i.e., the recited gateway.
Because Suzuki additionally teaches updating the table, the combination of
Storr and Suzuki teaches or suggests the disputed updating of a virtual
channel table at the node. In contrast, Appellant fails to provide sufficient
argument or evidence that the combination would not result in translation
tables at both the access equipment (i.e., the recited gateway) and at a
network node. We note mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements,
which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative
value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Storr and Suzuki together
with the rejection of dependent claims 6–9 that are not argued separately
with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–10, 13, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. 
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 13, 14 § 103 Storr, Suzuki 1–10, 13, 14

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED