Ex Parte Arulambalam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2012

10880344 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2012)

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.
10/880,344 06/29/2004 Ambalavanar Arulambalam 3-4-1-2 8155
7590 12/28/2012
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
Suite 205
1300 Post Road
Fairfield, CT 06824
EXAMINER
RENNER, BRANDON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2012 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 AMBALAVANAR ARULAMBALAM,
KENNETH ISLEY, MARK B. SIMKINS, and
SEUNG YEOP YANG
____________________

Appeal 2010-008675
Application 10/880,344
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008675
Application 10/880,344

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a non-final
rejection of claims 1-25, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants invented a method and apparatus for cell scheduling
techniques in an ATM adaption layer. Specification 1:5-6.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A method for scheduling cells from a plurality of virtual
circuits, each of said virtual circuits having a transmission
characteristic, each of said plurality of virtual circuits classified
into one of a plurality of stagger groups based on similar
transmission characteristics of said virtual circuits, said method
comprising the steps of:
[1] establishing frame synchronization; and
[2] for each frame synchronization, transmitting a cell from a
given virtual circuit until a predefined cell threshold is
exceeded for said stagger group containing said given virtual
circuit, wherein a transmission schedule for said stagger groups
reduces cell clumping.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Fan US 6,324,165 B1 Nov. 27, 2001

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Dec. 22, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 28,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 29, 2010), and
Non-Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Sep. 28, 2009).
Appeal 2010-008675
Application 10/880,344

3
Dubuc US 6,603,739 B1 Aug. 5, 2003
Burns
Dove
US 2003/0147399 A1
US 2004/0246977 A1
Aug. 7, 2003
Dec. 9, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 second paragraph as
being indefinite.
Claims 1-3, 9, 13-15, 21, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e) as being anticipated by Dove.
Claims 4-6, 12, 16-18, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Dove and Dubuc.
Claims 7-8 and 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dove and Burns.
Claims 10-11 and 22-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dove and Fan.

ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-25
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as being indefinite
turns on whether a person with ordinary skill in the art would have
understood what “said stagger group” is when the claim is read in light of
the Specification.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-25 as
anticipated or obvious turns on whether the cited prior art discloses that each
of a plurality of virtual circuits are classified in to one of a plurality of
stagger groups based on similar transmission characteristics of virtual
circuits and the limitations of dependent claims 11-12 and 23-24.
Appeal 2010-008675
Application 10/880,344

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
With respect to the Examiner’s indefinite rejection, we agree with
Appellants.
With respect to the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness
rejections, we disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.

Claims 1-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 second paragraph as being
indefinite
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite “virtual circuits [are] classified
into one of a plurality of stagger groups” and refers again to stagger groups
reciting “a predefined cell threshold is exceeded for said stagger group.”
The Examiner found that “said stagger group” is indefinite as to “which one
of the plurality of stagger groups Appellant is referring to.” Ans. 10-11.
Appellants contend that “said stagger group” has the proper antecedent basis
of “one of a plurality of stagger groups” and as such the Examiner’s
rejection is in error. App. Br. 4 and Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellants. Specifically, we agree with the Appellants
that the limitation “said stagger group” refers to the “one of a plurality of
Appeal 2010-008675
Application 10/880,344

5
stagger groups.” The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is
claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics,
Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir.
1986)(citations omitted). Here, a person with ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that “said stagger groups” refers to “one of a plurality of
stagger groups.”

Claims 1-3, 9, 13-15, 21, and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Dove
Appellants contend that Dove fails to describe that each of a plurality
of virtual circuits are classified in to one of a plurality of stagger groups
based on similar transmission characteristics of virtual circuits. App. Br. 5-6
and Reply Br. 2-5. We disagree with Appellants. As noted supra, we find
that the Examiner has wholly responded to this argument (Ans. 11-13) and
we accordingly adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact as our own. As found
by the Examiner, independent claims 1, 13, and 25 require virtual circuits to
be classified into a stagger group based on similar transmission
characteristics and transmitting a cell until a predefined cell threshold is
exceeded for the stagger group thereby resulting in reduced cell clumping.
The Specification illustrates that “staggering can also be referred to as
“Frame-Based Scheduling” and a “virtual circuit” as an ATM connection.
Specification 7:13-14 and 18:19-21. As found by the Examiner, Dove
describes a plurality of channels and these channels are virtual circuits. Ans.
11-13 (citing Dove ¶¶ 52, 54, and 56-62). As also found by the Examiner, Dove
describes that a cell consists of a threshold of strictly scheduled packets and a
Appeal 2010-008675
Application 10/880,344

6
threshold of loosely scheduled packets, where strictly/loosely scheduled packets
have similar transmission characteristics. Id. The transmission is performed until
a threshold for the cell is exceeded. Id. Each frame is delineated by a frame sync
pulse. Id. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Dove describes that each of
a plurality of virtual circuits are classified into one of a plurality of stagger
groups based on similar transmission characteristics of virtual circuits.

Claims 4-6, 12, 16-18, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dove and Dubuc
Appellants contend that, as per claims 12 and 24, the combination of
Dove and Dubuc fails to teach or suggest
said transmitting step employs a staggering table comprised of a
plurality of rows corresponding to one of said stagger groups, wherein
each of said stagger groups is comprised of a number of virtual
circuits of the same rate, wherein each successive entry of a row
represents an offset of one stagger position and wherein said
transmitting step further comprises the steps of processing one entry
for every frame synchronization period and scheduling an active
virtual circuit contained in the entry for transmission.

App. Br. 7-8 and Reply Br. 7-8.
We disagree with Appellants. The Examiner found that Dubuc
describes a stagger table as is claimed. While Appellants acknowledge the
disclosure of Dubuc (App. Br 7-8 and Reply Br. 7-8), Appellants fail to
provide any rationale or evidence to distinguish the stagger table described
by Dubuc from the claimed stagger table. Absent any rationale or evidence
to rebut the Examiner’s finding, we do not find Appellants’ argument
persuasive.

Appeal 2010-008675
Application 10/880,344

7
Claims 7-8 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dove and Burns
Appellants have not provided separate arguments of patentability for
dependent claims 7-8 and 19-20 and as such we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed supra with respect
to independent claims 1 and 13.
Claims 10-11 and 22-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dove and Fan
Appellants contend that Fan describes rescheduling a queue, but fails
to describe “wrapping,” as per claims 11 and 23. App. Br. 6-7 and Reply Br.
5-7. Appellants specifically argue that the Examiner’s construction of the
term “wrapping” is inconsistent with the Specification. App. Br. and Reply
Br. 6. We disagree with Appellants. Appellants argue that the term
“wrapping” is limited to “the process of re-scheduling a row for service once
the frame-based schedule has serviced its last column.” App. Br. 6 (citing
Specification 19:8-11). However, as correctly found by the Examiner, the
Specification does not provide a specific definition for “wrapping” and the
claims do not narrow the scope of “wrapping.” Ans. 14. Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner that “wrapping” encompasses scheduling data
packets when a threshold is exceeded and Fan describes “said leaky bucket
type scheduling ensures that each of said plurality of stagger groups do not
wrap until the corresponding predefined cell threshold is exceeded for the
stagger group.” Ans. 14-15.
Appeal 2010-008675
Application 10/880,344

8

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. §112
second paragraph as being indefinite.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-25 as being anticipated or
obvious over the cited prior art.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. §112 second paragraph
as being indefinite is not sustained.
 The rejection of claims 1-25 as being anticipated or obvious over the
cited prior art is sustained.

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).

AFFIRMED

ke