Ex Parte ChunDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201411721555 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KYOUNG WOOK CHUN ____________________ Appeal 2011-012953 Application 11/721,555 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, JAMES P. CALVE, and ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges. KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Kyoung Wook Chun (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1–8 and 11–27. Claims 9 and 10 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-012953 Application 11/721,555 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a communication network system. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A communication network system comprising one or more servers to provide services in a network, the system comprising: a plurality of connectors coupled to one or more brokers, the brokers connected in a mesh network topology and each of the servers is connected to each of the brokers in a bus network topology, and the connectors configured to receive one or more service instances from a plurality of service terminal nodes, each service terminal node comprising a network address corresponding to the one or more service instances, the network address comprising a server identification (ID) and an instance service ID, wherein the network address specifies each service instances of the service terminal nodes, and one of the plurality of connectors is configured to register the one or more service instances to the one or more brokers according to the network address and to mediate a connection between one or more of the service terminal nodes and the one or more brokers by analyzing the server ID and the instance service ID, and the one or more brokers are configured to route the one or more service instances based on the analysis. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner has rejected: (i) claims 1–5 and 23–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puri (US 6,779,184 B1, issued Aug. 17, 2004) in view of Cullen (US 2005/0021622 A1, published Jan. 27, 2005); Appeal 2011-012953 Application 11/721,555 3 (ii) claims 6–8, 11–15, 18–22, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puri in view of Cullen and Fuller (US 2008/0279222 A1, published Nov. 13, 2008); (iii) claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puri in view of Cullen, Fuller, and Gourlay (US 6,920,498 B1, issued July 19, 2005); and (iv) claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puri in view of Cullen, Fuller, and Najmi (US 2002/0103743 A1, published Aug. 1, 2002). ANALYSIS Claims 1–5 and 23–26—§ 103(a)—Puri/Cullen Appellant argues claims 1–5 and 23–26 as a group.1 Appeal Br. 8–17. We will take claim 1 as representative, and claims 2–5 and 23–26 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). The Examiner finds that Puri discloses all limitations set forth in claim 1, with the exception of providing a plurality of brokers connected in a mesh network topology. Answer 5–7. The Examiner finds that Cullen teaches a plurality of brokers connected in a mesh network topology, and concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify Puri to include a plurality of brokers in a cluster connected by a mesh network topology,” in order to enable dynamic subscription and routing methods to allow scale up 1 Appellant includes, in the arguments directed to the rejection over Puri and Cullen, reference to independent claims 11, 12, and 21, and mentions particular limitations appearing in those claims. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 16. These claims are, however, rejected over a combination of Puri, Cullen, and Fuller, as will be discussed in the ensuing section of the analysis. Appeal 2011-012953 Application 11/721,555 4 over any number of sites regardless of changes in topology of the network or the availability of connections, as taught by Cullen. Id. at 7. Appellant maintains that: it is not an issue whether finding claimed “mesh topology” and “bus topology” from two different prior art references and sever each of the claimed “mesh topology” and “bus topology” into pieces to meet each of the two different network topology from the references respectively. Rather, the important issue is whether prior art utilizes dual topologies (i.e., mesh topology and bus topology) associated with brokers within a communication network system. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant here appears to be saying something akin to, “if dual topologies are not found in a single prior art reference, the claims should be deemed to be patentable.” That, however, is the standard for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and not for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The important issue in a rejection grounded in § 103 is whether the prior art, as a whole, evidences that the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Appellant follows this with a statement that the rejection is based on the use of impermissible hindsight and a piecemeal selection of elements to reconstruct the invention. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s findings as to what is taught by each of the Puri and Cullen references, and does not take issue with the reason to modify Puri in view of the teachings of Cullen articulated by the Examiner in rejecting claim 1. Appeal Br., passim; Reply Br., passim. Appellant further misconstrues the Examiner’s position relative to the single broker hub 101 disclosed by Puri, in stating that the “Examiner Appeal 2011-012953 Application 11/721,555 5 mischaracterizes [the] single broker for the ‘mesh network topology,’” and that “the broker hub 101 of Puri must be satisfying both ‘mesh topology’ and ‘bus topology.’” Appeal Br. 12. While it is true that, in the abstract, Puri’s single broker hub 101 would meet a claim limitation requiring the presence of “one or more brokers,” it is not the Examiner’s position that the single broker hub 101 embodies both a mesh topology and a bus topology. It is the modification to Puri proposed by the Examiner, in view of the teachings of Cullen, that results in the presence of a mesh network topology and a bus network topology as claimed. Appellant’s argument at page 13 of the Appeal Brief directed to the Cullen reference is nothing more than an individual attack on the Cullen reference, whereas the rejection of claim 1 is based upon a modification of the Puri system in view of the teachings of Cullen. The argument thus does not apprise us of Examiner error. Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s position taken with respect to a limitation appearing in independent claims 11, 12, and 21, evidences that the modification on Puri in view of Cullen fails to provide both a mesh network topology and a bus network topology. Appeal Br. 13. More specifically, Appellant maintains that the Examiner’s acknowledgement that Puri and Cullen do not explicitly disclose that a registered terminal node is selected as an anycast group or multicast group, “undermines the factual determination that Puri in view of Cullen discloses ‘mesh network topology’ and ‘bus network topology.’” Id. Appellant later explains that “the recited dual network topology of claim 1 should support features of ‘wherein a portion of the registered services corresponding to one of the service terminal nodes is selected as an anycast group or a multicast Appeal 2011-012953 Application 11/721,555 6 group.’” Id. at 16. The Examiner addresses the argument, taking the position that “bus networks and mesh networks do not inherently rely on multicasting or anycasting,” a position that Appellant does not traverse. Answer 28–29. As noted in the section below, the Examiner relies on Fuller as disclosing the use of anycast grouping, and concludes that it would have been obvious to employ anycast grouping in the system resulting from the modification of Puri in view of Cullen. See id. at 11. Appellant further argues that “the architectures of Puri and Cullen are so different that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be looking to Cullen for ideas to modify Puri without changing Puri’s principle of operation.” Appeal Br. 15. At the outset, we note that this argument appears under a heading alleging that “CULLEN TEACHES AWAY FROM THE COMBINATION OF PURI.” Id. at 14. The statement itself is not clear as to whether Appellant contends that Cullen is nonanalogous art (one would not look to Cullen for ideas to modify Puri) or that the proposed modification would change the basic principle of operation of the Puri system. Whatever Appellant’s theory may be, we are not persuaded that the combination of the teachings of Puri and Cullen and the proposed modification of Puri are in error. Appellant argues that, if the single object hub 101 of Puri were replaced by the plurality of brokers in Cullen, a heavy burden on the Puri architecture to support functional redundancies would be realized, and “would lead the Puri system operating [sic] unintended purposes.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant further maintains that “[i]f single object broker 101 of the Puri’s system adopts one-to-many distribution messages/information transmitted between the single object broker 101 and multiple Puri’s [sic] Appeal 2011-012953 Application 11/721,555 7 switches . . . and high level APIs . . . the messages/information may be lost or delivered out of order,” leaving the components vulnerable or unreliable. Id. Thus, according to Appellant, the Puri single object broker is not interchangeable with the multiple brokers disclosed in Cullen. The Examiner notes, however, that the rejection is not based on incorporating the brokers disclosed in Cullen into the Puri system, but rather is “based on modifying Puri to include a plurality of brokers in a mesh network topology. This can be achieved by arranging a plurality of broker hubs in a mesh configuration, as opposed to the single broker hub 101 disclosed by Puri.” Answer 24–26. Thus, Appellant’s arguments are seen as not corresponding to the particular modification proposed by the Examiner and are not indicative of error in the Examiner’s position. In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over Puri in view of Cullen is not sustained. Claims 2–5 and 23–26 fall with claim 1. Claim 6–8, 11–15, 18–22, and 27—§ 103(a)—Puri/Cullen/Fuller As best as we can determine, Appellant’s only direct argument as to the proposed modification of the Puri system in view of Fuller in rejecting independent claims 11, 12, and 21, is that “the Examiner simply ignores the claimed qualifier of ‘multicast group,’” and that it is technically inaccurate to “suggest[] [that] messages destined to ‘multicast group’ can be replaced with ‘anycast group.’” Appeal Br. 16–17. The Examiner explains that the claimed “anycast group” and “multicast group” are recited in alternative fashion, and that the claim does not require both an anycast group and a multicast group. Answer 28. The Examiner further notes that, in view of the disclosure in Fuller of the use of Appeal 2011-012953 Application 11/721,555 8 anycast addresses employed to specify a group of one or more servers on a network, it would have been obvious to modify Puri in such a manner to facilitate load balancing across servers. Id. Appellant has not countered this rationale or identified where this reason to modify Puri is lacking in rational underpinnings. The rejection of independent claims 11, 12, and 21 is thus sustained. Appellant does not argue the separate patentability of the dependent claims that are subject to this rejection, and therefore claims 6–8, 13–15, 18–20, 22, and 27 fall with claims 11, 12, and 21. Claim 16—§ 103(a)—Puri/Cullen/Fuller/Gourlay and Claim 17—§ 103(a)—Puri/Cullen/Fuller/Najmi Appellant presents no separate arguments for the patentability of claims 16 and 17, which depend ultimately from independent claim 12. Accordingly, the rejections of these claims are sustained. DECISION The rejection of claims 1–5 and 23–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puri in view of Cullen is affirmed. The rejection of claims 6–8, 11–15, 18–22, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puri in view of Cullen and Fuller is affirmed. The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puri in view of Cullen, Fuller, and Gourlay is affirmed. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puri in view of Cullen, Fuller, and Najmi is affirmed. Appeal 2011-012953 Application 11/721,555 9 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation