Ex Parte Clune et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 8, 2012

10037067 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 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.
10/037,067 12/21/2001 David E. Clune Clune 3-4-18 5463
47384 7590 11/08/2012
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
90 FOREST AVENUE
LOCUST VALLEY, NY 11560
EXAMINER
NEURAUTER, GEORGE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2615
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2012 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 DAVID E. CLUNE, HANAN Z. MOLLER,
and DAVID P. SONNIER
____________________

Appeal 2013-0002141
Application 10/037,067
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and LARRY J.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed December 21, 2001. The real party in interest is LSI Logic, Corp.
(App. Br. 1.) In appeal 2009-07312, dated 12/02/10, another panel affirmed
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-15 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Bonomi and Knuth.
Appeal 2013-000214
Application 10/037,067

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 11, 14-19, 21, 23, 24, and 26-30.
Claims 2-4, 9, 10, 12, 13 have been canceled. (App. Br. 2.)2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and apparatus for transmitting data to a
plurality of destination nodes of a multicast session in a data network by
traversing a circularly linked list of nodes. In particular, each node in the list
contains an entry node corresponding to an initial destination address for
receiving multicast data and an associated link designating a next destination
node such that the multicast data is sent to a final destination node while
excluding the initial destination node therefrom. (Fig. 3, spec. 6, l. 15-spec.
7, l. 23.)

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method for transmitting multicast data to destination nodes of a
multicast session in a network having a plurality of nodes, comprising:

forming a circularly linked list comprising a plurality of entries
corresponding to respective destination nodes for receiving multicast data,

2 Appellants indicate that claims 16-19, 21, 23, 24, and 26-30 were added.
(App. Br. 2.) However, Appellants do not account for claims 20, 22, and 25.
We therefore make no findings as to the status of claims 20, 22, and 25.
Appeal 2013-000214
Application 10/037,067

3
each entry of the circularly linked list comprising a link to another entry in
the list corresponding to another destination node;

receiving the multicast data intended for transmittal to the destination
nodes of the multicast session;

entering the circularly linked list at an initial entry corresponding to
an initial destination node; and

traversing the circularly linked list using the links of respective entries
of the circularly linked list until the initial entry is reached and, for each
entry of the circularly linked list other than the initial entry, sending the
multicast data to the corresponding destination node such that the initial
destination node is excluded from the multicast session.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Bonomi US 6,219,352 B1 Apr. 17, 2001
Knuth, “The Art of Computer Programming”, Second Edition, Vol. 1
“Fundamental Algorithms”, pgs. 228-231 and 270-273, Addison-Wesley
Pub. Co. Inc. 1973.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5-8, 11, 14-19, 21, 23, 24, and 26-30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Bonomi and Knuth.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5-10.
Appeal 2013-000214
Application 10/037,067

4
Claim 1
Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Bonomi and Knuth teaches or suggests a circularly
linked list containing a plurality of entries corresponding to respective
destination nodes for receiving multicast data, each of said entries
containing a link to another entry in the list corresponding to another
destination node, to thereby send the multicast data to a corresponding
destination node while excluding the initial destination node from the
multicast session, as recited in independent claim 1?
Appellants contend that the combined disclosures of Bonomi and
Knuth do not teach or suggests the disputed limitations emphasized above.
(App. Br. 5-10.) In particular, Appellants argue that Bonomi discloses
traversing physical and logical queues to transmit the cells contained therein,
as opposed to linked entries corresponding to respective destination nodes to
which the cells are to be transmitted. (Id. at 6.) Further, Appellants argue
that, while Bonomi discloses a mask table that stores data about output
branches on which each data cell is to be transmitted, each of the output
branches contains a single bit, and not a link to a next output branch.
Therefore, Appellants submit that the proffered combination also does not
teach or suggest entering a circularly linked list at an initial entry
corresponding to an initial destination node to thereby send the multicast
data to a corresponding destination node for each entry of the list other than
the initial entry. (Id. at 7.) Additionally, Appellants argue that because
Knuth has nothing to do with data multicasting, it is not analogous art to the
Appeal 2013-000214
Application 10/037,067

5
present invention, and therefore does not qualify as valid prior art. (Id. at 8-
9.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Bonomi’s disclosure of placing
received cells in a queue and subsequently transmitting the received cells
from a source node to a target node, taken in combination with Knuth’s
disclosure of a circularly linked list, teaches the disputed limitations. (Ans.
5-6, 12.)
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the Examiner’s
underlying factual findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness
regarding claim 1. Bonomi discloses an asynchronous transfer mode (ATM)
switch that supports multicast transmissions of data frames. (Title, abstract.)
In particular, upon receiving multicast data cells for transmission to a
plurality of output branches, a queue manager within the ATM maintains in
a queue a single copy of each of the received cells as a linked list, which
contains the processing order of the cells as well as their respective
addresses, and associated data paths. (Col. 10, l. 61-col. 11, l. 5.) The queue
manager maintains for each queue ID (QID) an associated port mask through
which a particular cell will be transferred to a designated output branch. The
port mask selectively identifies the output branches to which the cells will be
transmitted. (Col. 11, ll. 23-38.) The port mask subsequently identifies the
cells within a physical queue that will be transmitted to selected output ports.
(Col. 14, ll. 3-8.) Upon traversing a particular cell, the queue manager
deletes the cell from the queue. (Col. 8, ll. 19-22.). Further, Knuth discloses
that one advantage of circularly-linked lists is that they allow access into the
Appeal 2013-000214
Application 10/037,067

6
list at any given point. (P. 270.) Knuth also discloses that a circularly
linked list can be used to represent a linear structure since they are in some
instances equivalent structures (P. 272).

Figure 5 of Bonomi

Figure 1 of Knuth (p. 270)

As depicted in Figure 5 of Bonomi, we find that by passing the cells
entering an initial node entry port to the node’s output port to a succession of
branches linked together as a list until the cells reach their ultimate output
branch destination, Bonomi teaches entering a linked list at an initial
Appeal 2013-000214
Application 10/037,067

7
destination node, traversing the linked list of branches or nodes wherein
each traversed output branch destination branch or node corresponding to an
entry node until the cell is delivered to the ultimate destination branch.
Further, as depicted in Figure 1 of Knuth, we find that Knuth’s
disclosure of linking a final destination node back to an initial destination
entry node complements Bonomi’s linked list to predictably result in a
circularly linked list having a plurality of destination nodes that are traversed
from an initial destination node until the multicast data is delivered to the
final destination node. Therefore, because the proposed combination of
Bonomi and Knuth discloses known elements that perform their ordinary
functions to predictably result in the multicast system, the combination is
proper. Additionally, because Knuth’s disclosure relates to solving the
problem of making linked lists more accessible, we find unpersuasive
Appellants’ arguments that Knuth is not analogous prior art.3
Regarding Appellants’ argument that the combination of Bonomi and
Knuth does not teach excluding from the multicast session a destination
node of the list from the received data (Br. 7.) We note that Bonomi not only

3 Whether a reference in the prior art is ‘analogous’ is a fact question.” In re
Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v. Dennison
Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n. 9 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Two criteria have
evolved for answering the question: “(1) whether the art is from the same
field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the
reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the
reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
the inventor is involved.” Id. at 658-59 (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d
436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
Appeal 2013-000214
Application 10/037,067

8
discloses a mechanism for updating cell entries in the queue to be
transmitted to the nodes, but the reference also discloses a port mask that
identifies selected output ports to which the cell entries are transmitted. As
each cell is received at a port, the scheduler updates a port mask entry
associated therewith to indicate that the cell needs not be transmitted to that
port any longer. (Col. 14, ll. 17-25.) Consequently, we find that by selecting
which output ports to transfer the received cell data to, Bonomi teaches or
suggests excluding the non-designated ports from receiving the multicast
data. It follows that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bonomi and
Knuth.
Because Appellants reiterate the same arguments of claim 1 for claim
26, these claims fall together. Further, because Appellants argue the
rejection of claims 5-8, 11, 14-19, 21, 23, 24, and 27-30 fall with claim 1,
we affirm the rejection of these claims in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5-8, 11, 14-19, 21,
23, 24, and 26-30 as set forth above.
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) (2009).

AFFIRMED