Ex Parte Chun

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2014

11721555 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014)

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