Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 29, 2021

2020003505 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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. 15/604,971 05/25/2017 Keil Brewer URBANEK-1011 5376 75930 7590 12/29/2021 LOZA & LOZA, LLP/Nokia Jessica W. Smith, Esq. 305 North 2nd Avenue, #127 Upland, CA 91786 EXAMINER FAYED, RASHA K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2413 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2021 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): jessica-pto@lozaip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte KEIL BREWER, RAJAMOULI GUJJARI, and PHILIP WINTERBOTTOM _______________ Appeal 2020-003505 Application 15/604,971 Technology Center 2400 _______________ Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies Nokia of America Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003505 Application 15/604,971 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant describes “a distributed Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) comprising a root CMTS node and a plurality of branch CMTS nodes for distributing downstream signals from the root CMTS node to a plurality of Cable Modems (CMs) and for relaying upstream signals from the plurality of CMs to the root CMTS node.” Spec. ¶ 9. “The distributed CMTS system provides services to CMs as service flows and allows different CMs to send upstream data belonging to different service flows through a same physical upstream channel provided by a branch CMTS node of the distributed CMTS system.” Spec. ¶ 25. According to the Specification, DOCSIS2, an industry standard that defines the layers and protocols needed to send large amounts of digital data through the coaxial cable television (“CATV”) cables connecting the branch CMTS nodes to the CMs, divides a physical upstream channel into a plurality of logical upstream channels. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 4, 27, 34. The logical upstream channels may be further divided into a plurality of timing intervals. Spec. ¶ 36. The timing intervals may be used by the CMs to transmit upstream data for different service flows. Spec. ¶ 36. A service flow identifier may be used to indicate “the start and end times of the timing interval for transmitting data for the service flow.” Spec. ¶ 39. Thus, because a service flow identifier corresponds to a specific timing interval within a logical upstream channel of the physical uplink channel, “different service flows cannot share a same physical upstream channel if they have the same SID [(service flow identifier)].” Spec. ¶ 45. 2 Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification. Appeal 2020-003505 Application 15/604,971 3 In a disclosed embodiment, Appellant describes defining a plurality of MAC domains (a provision within DOCSIS to organize users of CMs to provide data forwarding services to a set of downstream and upstream channels) at the branch CMTS nodes (rather than defining only at the cable headend), which allows for service flows belonging to different branch CMTS nodes to reuse the same SIDs. Spec. ¶¶ 44, 47. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A system comprising: a distributed CMTS comprising a root CMTS node and a plurality of branch CMTS nodes for distributing downstream signals from the root CMTS node to a plurality of CMs and for relaying upstream signals from the plurality of CMs to the root CMTS node; each branch CMTS node receiving upstream signals from a corresponding set of CMs by using a set of physical upstream channels, wherein a first CM transmits a first upstream signal having a first service flow identifier on a first physical upstream channel of a first branch CMTS node by using a first transmission opportunity that is identified by the first service flow identifier, wherein a second CM transmits a second upstream signal having a second service flow identifier on a second physical upstream channel of a second branch CMTS node by using a second transmission opportunity that is identified by the second service flow identifier, wherein the first service flow identifier of the first upstream signal and the second service flow identifier of the second upstream signal are identical. Appeal 2020-003505 Application 15/604,971 4 The Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 1–5, 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salinger et al. (US 2016/0197764 A1; July 7, 2016) (“Salinger”); Walsh et al. (US 2013/0265444 A1; Oct. 10, 2013) (“Walsh”); and Arnold (US 8,908,518 B1; Dec. 9, 2014). Final Act. 2–8. 2. Claims 6–9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salinger, Walsh, Arnold, and Beser (US 7,443,873 B1; Oct. 28, 2008). Final Act. 8–11. 3. Claims 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salinger and Walsh.3 Final Act. 11–15. 4. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salinger, Walsh, and Thomas et al. (US 2003/0016692 A1; Jan. 23, 2003) (“Thomas”). Final Act. 15–16. 5. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Salinger, Walsh, and Beser. Final Act. 16. 3 Although the Examiner’s statement of rejection includes Arnold, we note that the body of the rejection for each of these claims does not rely on Arnold. See Final Act. 11–15. Appellant does not allege to have been prejudiced by the inclusion of Arnold in the statement of rejection. Accordingly, we treat the Examiner’s inclusion of Arnold in the statement of rejection as a harmless typographical error. Appeal 2020-003505 Application 15/604,971 5 ANALYSIS4 Claims 1–13 In rejecting independent claim 1, inter alia, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Walsh, Salinger, and Arnold. Final Act. 2–8. More particularly, the Examiner finds Walsh teaches a distributed CMTS comprising a CMTS root node and a plurality of branch CMTS nodes, as recited, with each branch CMTS node receiving upstream signals from a corresponding set of CMs by using a set of physical upstream channels. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Walsh ¶¶ 5–7, 70). The Examiner finds Salinger teaches (i) a first CM transmits a first upstream signal having a first service flow identifier on a first physical upstream channel of a first branch CMTS node, and (ii) a second CM transmits a second upstream signal having a second service flow identifier on a second physical upstream channel of a second branch CMTS node, as recited. Final Act. 3 (citing Salinger ¶¶ 48–49, 55, 84–85, Fig. 12). The Examiner finds Arnold teaches “wherein the first service flow identifier of the first upstream signal and the second service flow identifier of the second upstream signal are identical.” Final Act. 4–5 (citing Arnold, col. 9, l. 30–col. 10, l. 20, Figs. 7–9); see also Ans. 5–6. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Arnold teaches “wherein the first service flow identifier of the first upstream signal and the second service flow identifier of the second upstream signal are identical.” 4 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed January 3, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed April 6, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed February 4, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed May 2, 2019 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. Appeal 2020-003505 Application 15/604,971 6 Appeal Br. 11–15; Reply Br. 8–10. Instead, Appellant argues that Arnold’s service class identifiers (“SCIDs”) relied on by the Examiner are codes used to designate Quality of Service (“QoS”) parameters in downstream packets from a single CMTS node. Appeal Br. 11–15; Reply Br. 8–10. Moreover, Appellant argues that Arnold describes different identifiers (e.g., SF1, SF2) as its service flow identifiers and does not teach that these service flow identifiers are identical. Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 11–13; see also Arnold, col. 11, ll. 10–14. Additionally, Appellant argues that the other references, Walsh and Salinger, also fail to teach “wherein the first service flow identifier of the first upstream signal and the second service flow identifier of the second upstream signal are identical.” Appeal Br. 15–17; Reply Br. 14–17. More particularly, Appellant asserts that Salinger describes upstream transmissions are governed by the DOCSIS standard and, as such, suffers from the issues that Appellant’s claimed invention purports to resolve. Appeal Br. 15–16 (citing Salinger ¶ 47); Reply Br. 14–15 (citing Salinger ¶¶ 47, 84–87, Figs. 23–24). Regarding Walsh, Appellant asserts that Walsh’s limited discussion of upstream signals merely describes that upstream channel widths are configurable per the DOCSIS standard. Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 15–16. Moreover, Appellant argues Walsh is silent regarding service flow identifiers or how they are assigned. Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 16. Arnold generally relates to “implementing Quality of Service (QoS) on multimedia data streams transmitted over IP networks.” Arnold, col. 1, ll. 15–17. More particularly, Arnold describes approaches to implementing QoS for handling variable bandwidth data carried over a network. Arnold, Appeal 2020-003505 Application 15/604,971 7 col. 2, ll. 48–51. Arnold describes that downstream bandwidth demand may vary based on myriad factors, including the nature of the content being downloaded. Arnold, col. 3, ll. 53–67. To account for downstream bandwidth demand, Arnold teaches including service class identifier (SCID) codes into a packet header. Arnold, col. 9, l. 30–col. 10, l. 60. Arnold further describes a CMTS may “be configured to recognize this SCID code as indicative of HD content [and] provision[] the appropriate downstream link to accommodate the bandwidth necessary for delivery of this HD content to the appropriate CPE device [(i.e., cable modem)].” Arnold, col. 10, ll. 2–6; see also Arnold, col. 11, ll. 3–10 (describing that the CMTS inspects the header of each data packet to configure the downstream communication bandwidth to accommodate the bandwidth requirements needed by the service identified by the SCID). Based on our review of Arnold, we agree with Appellant that Arnold does not teach “wherein the first service flow identifier of the first upstream signal and the second service flow identifier of the second upstream signal are identical,” as recited in claim 1. Although the service class identifiers that identify downloaded content type in Arnold may be reused—that is, there may be multiple service flows carrying HD multimedia content— Arnold does not teach that the service flow identifiers of upstream signals may be identical. For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–13, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom. Appeal 2020-003505 Application 15/604,971 8 Claims 14–18 Claim 14 recites, in relevant part, “wherein the first service flow identifier is identical to a third service flow identifier for identifying a third service flow from a third CM that is connected to the second branch CMTS node through a second CA TV cable network.” Appellant relies on the arguments advanced with respect to claim 1 and asserts that the cited prior art fails to teach the first and third service flow identifiers are identical, as claimed. Appeal Br. 19. In rejecting claim 14, the Examiner relies on Salinger to teach the disputed limitation. Final Act. 12–13 (citing Salinger ¶¶ 3, 61, Fig. 5). Salinger generally relates to a network architecture including a packet processing node that manages, inter alia, QoS levels for the subscriber devices (e.g., cable modems). Salinger ¶¶ 8, 42. Salinger describes an exemplary access network as comprising a packet processing node, a plurality of access nodes, and a plurality of subscriber devices. Salinger ¶ 42, Fig. 3. Salinger describes the subscriber devices, such as cable modems, communicate to the access nodes using a DOCSIS radio frequency interface carried on conventional coaxial links. Salinger ¶ 42. Regarding upstream communication (i.e., from the subscriber device to the access node), Salinger teaches it is known that the DOCSIS RF interface includes multiple frequency channels and bandwidth assignments. Salinger ¶ 45. Salinger describes that “upstream transmissions are controlled using the media access control protocol typically set forth in a standard, such as in the previously[]identified DOCSIS standards.” Salinger ¶ 47. As identified by the Examiner, Salinger further describes the access nodes may buffer encapsulated packets received from the packet processing Appeal 2020-003505 Application 15/604,971 9 node. Salinger ¶ 61, Fig. 5. According to Salinger, the encapsulated packets may contain control messages intended for one or more subscriber devices. Salinger ¶ 61. Because the packet processing node has already determined the particular QAM (quadrature amplitude modulation) channel associated with a subscriber device, “all packets bound for user devices on a particular downstream QAM channel are marked as corresponding to that QAM channel.” Salinger ¶ 61. Based on our review, including the relied upon portions of Salinger, we do not find that Salinger teaches that different service flow identifiers of upstream signals are identical, as set forth in claim 14. For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 15–18, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 10, 12, 13 103 Salinger, Walsh, Arnold 1–5, 10, 12, 13 6–9, 11 103 Salinger, Walsh, Arnold, Beser 6–9, 11 14, 16, 17 103 Salinger, Walsh 14, 16, 17 Appeal 2020-003505 Application 15/604,971 10 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 15 103 Salinger, Walsh, Thomas 15 18 103 Salinger, Walsh, Beser 18 Overall Outcome 1–18 REVERSED