Unify GmbH & Co. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2020

2019003635 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2020)

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.
15/231,816 08/09/2016 Tomas Malecek 2012P00199WOUS-966 6061
88087 7590 06/24/2020
Fritzsche Patent
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN)
P. O. Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
SOLINSKY, PETER G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2020 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):
ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOMAS MALECEK, PAVEL NOVOTNY, and
MARTIN PLSEK
Appeal 2019-003635
Application 15/231,816
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOYCE CRAIG Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 16–35. We heard oral argument on June 11, 2020.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Unify GmbH & Co. KG.
Appeal Brief 1, filed November 13, 2018 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2019-003635
Application 15/231,816

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “managing local ports in a packet-
oriented data network.” Specification 1:12–13, filed August 9, 2016. Claim
16 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
16. A method for managing local ports in a packet-oriented data
network, comprising:
disadvantaging a first local port of the local ports for
selection and assignment after the first local port has been used
in a communication session to which the first local port was
assigned is closed so that the first local port is in a closed state
by giving the first local port a first mark, the first mark indicating
that the first local port is in a closed state after the communication
session ended and that the ended communication session was an
unsuspected session;
further disadvantaging the first local port in response to
detection of the first local port in the closed state being a target
of data packet flooding by giving the first local port a second
mark, the second mark indicating a local port is the target of data
packet flooding;
defining a queue including the local ports for selection and
assignment, said local ports being selected and assigned from a
head of said queue to a tail of said queue; and
placing the disadvantaged first local port at the tail of said
queue in response to the first local port having the first mark and
being given the second mark such that the first local port be a last
port in the queue that is selectable for assignment when the
second mark is given to the first local port.
Appeal Br. 24.

Appeal 2019-003635
Application 15/231,816

3
REJECTION2
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References
16–35 103(a) Gooch,3 Adams4
DISCUSSION
Claim 16 recites “placing the disadvantaged first local port at the tail
of said queue in response to the first local port having the first mark and
being given the second mark such that the first local port be a last port in the
queue that is selectable for assignment when the second mark is given to the
first local port.” Appeal Br. 24. Appellant argues that the Examiner
erroneously found that Adams teaches or suggests this limitation. See
Appeal Br. 17. According to Appellant, Adams discloses “that, in response
to a conference call being terminated, the terminating trunk port to which
that call was assigned is placed at the end of the queue.” Appeal Br. 17
(quotation marks omitted). Appellant contends that this does not teach or
suggest “putting any port at an end of a queue in response to the port being
given a second mark after having already had a first mark” as required by
the disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 17.
Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred. The Examiner
found that Adams teaches the disputed limitation because Adams teaches
placing a terminating trunk port at the end of a queue after terminating a
conference call. See Final Office Action 4, mailed July 17, 2018 (citing
Adams 9:22–43). But the disputed limitation requires placing a

2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claim 34 under § 112. Examiner’s
Answer 3, mailed March 1, 2019 (Ans.).
3 Gooch et al. (US 2007/0183416 A1; August 9, 2007).
4 Adams et al. (US 5,452,348; September 19, 1995).
Appeal 2019-003635
Application 15/231,816

4
disadvantaged first local port at the end of a queue “in response to the first
local port having the first mark and being given the second mark.” Appeal
Br. 24. The Examiner did not point to anything in Adams that teaches or
suggests placing a disadvantaged first local port at the end of queue in
response to the port satisfying this condition. And if the Examiner found that
this aspect of the disputed limitation was a matter of design choice, see Ans.
5, the Examiner did not provide adequate reasoning to support this finding.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under § 103(a) of independent claim 16 and its dependent claims. Because
the Examiner’s rejection under § 103(a) of independent claims 26 and 35
suffers from a similar deficiency, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under § 103(a) of independent claims 26 and 35 and the claims that
depend from claim 26.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16–35 103(a) Gooch, Adams 16–35

REVERSED