Ex Parte De Smet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

14017935 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/017,935 09/04/2013
102469 7590 03/28/2018
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bruno De Smet
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
IC-13-0167-USl 2303
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, STEVEN HD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUNO DE SMET, FABIEN BESSON, and
ALEXANDER MA Y-WEYMANN
Appeal2017-009300
Application 14/017 ,93 5
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20, which are all of the pending claims. App. Br. 5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "robust header
compression (RoHC) of data flows and, more specifically, improving the
reliability of those data flows." Spec. i-f 1.
1 The real party in interest is NVIDIA Corporation (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2017-009300
Application 14/017,935
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A protocol stack embodied in a non-transitory computer-
readable storage media for use with a processor of a modem,
compnsmg:
a bandwidth estimator operable to generate an indicator
of excess bandwidth on a channel over which a data flow
having original packet headers compressed at an initial
compression level is transmitted; and
a robust header compression (RoHC) compressor
operable to gain access to said indicator and select a reduced
compression level only based on said indicator and only when
said indicator indicates said excess bandwidth on said channel.
C. REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mabuchi (US 2011/0149790 Al, published June 23,
2011), and Kekki (US 2004/0120357 Al, published June 24, 2004).
2. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mabuchi, and Dinan (US 7,948,913, issued May 24,
2011).
II. ISSUES
The main issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding:
1. The combination of Mabuchi and Kekki teaches or suggests: 1)
an "indicator of excess bandwidth on a channel over which a data flow
having original packet headers compressed at an initial compression level is
transmitted;" and 2) a "robust header compression (RoHC) compressor" to
"select a reduced compression level only based on said indicator." Claim 1.
2
Appeal2017-009300
Application 14/017,935
2. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have found it obvious to combine Dinan's channel capacity indicator
for reducing compression with Mabuchi's header compression control
method.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Mabuchi
1. Mabuchi discloses a header compressor that changes a compression
ratio of a header of a packet to a compression ratio lower than a present
compression ratio. Abst. A compression controller controls the
compression based upon at least information among channel quality
information of the communication device and from the communication
partner. Id. A buffer manager sends buffered quantity information
indicative of a buffered quantity of packets to the compression controller,
wherein, as the buffered quantities are greater, the channel quality is
considered to be poorer. i-f 3 6.
Kekki
2. Kekki discloses controlling header compression in a packet data
network, wherein header compression is triggered in response to an
evaluation of the load information of the packet data network. Abst.
Headers can be compressed on demand, where traffic volume is higher and
transmission capacity is bottleneck. Id. At predetermined time intervals, the
compression control unit evaluates the load information and then triggers a
3
Appeal2017-009300
Application 14/017,935
compression negotiation for a respective link based on the result of the
evaluation. i-f 39.
Dinan
3. Dinan discloses a channel capacity indicator that indicates the
capacity of a feedback channel and a channel quality indicator that indicates
the quality of a feedback channel. Abst, Operation of a header-
compression algorithm is selected based on the received indications. Id.
Selection of the mode of operation for robust header compression (RoHC)
depends on the capacity and the quality of the feedback channel. Col. 7, 11.
4---6.
IV. ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
35 US.C. § 103(a) over Mabuchi and Kekki
Appellants contend that Mabuchi does not "disclose the claimed
indicator of excess bandwidth on a channel" but instead "teaches reducing
header compression when a quality of a channel over which data is
transmitted is reduced." App. Br. 6. That is, although Appellants concede
Mabuchi discloses "altering header compression" based on channel
information for the channel "over which data is transmitted," Appellants
contend the altering of header compression is based on "a quality" of the
channel. Id.
4
Appeal2017-009300
Application 14/017,935
Appellants then contends "any modification of Mabuchi that does not
include a teaching of altering of header compression based on a quality of a
channel would teach away from Mabuchi" because "Mabuchi explicitly
requires using a quality of a channel to alter header compression." Id. at 7.
Thus, Appellants contend "Kekki's purported teaching of altering header
compression based on excess bandwidth teaches away from Mabuchi." Id.
Further, Appellants contend "Kekki cannot teach an indicator of excess
bandwidth on a channel since the bandwidth on the channel [in Kekki]
changes." Id. at 9.
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and evidence
presented. However, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions
regarding the Examiner's combination of the Mabuchi and Kekki to reject
the claims. On this record, we find no error with the Examiner's ultimate
conclusion that claims would have been obvious over the combined
references.
Here, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on the
combination of Mabuchi and Kekki for teaching or at least suggesting the
contested limitations.
As Appellants concede, Mabuchi discloses "altering header
compression" based on channel information. App. Br. 6; FF 1. As the
Examiner finds, "Mabuchi discloses a method and system for implementing
compression level on the header of [a] packet based on the number of
resending packets." Final Act. 8; FF 1. As the Examiner explains, "[this]
condition is related to the bandwidth of [the] channel." Id. In particular, in
Mabuchi, the bandwidth varies inversely with the channel quality, wherein
the greater the buffered quantities, the poorer the channel quality. FF 1.
5
Appeal2017-009300
Application 14/017,935
That is, "the measure of the number of packets in a buffer or free space left
in the buffer is a measure of remaining capacity" wherein "the measure[] of
remaining capacity is compared with [a] threshold to determine if the user's
usage has excess ... allocated bandwidth for the user in order to generate a[]
bandwidth excess indicator such as channel quality indicator [indicating that
the channel] is poor." Ans. 8-9; FF 1.
Thus, although Appellants contend Mabuchi's altering of header
compression is based on "a quality" of the channel (App. Br. 6), we find no
error with the Examiner's finding that Mabuchi's "indicator" indicates an
"excess bandwidth on a channel," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8-9.
Further, Kekki discloses header compression in which headers are
compressed on demand when transmission capacity is in bottleneck. FF 2.
In Kekki, a compression control unit evaluates the load information and
triggers a compression negotiation for a respective link based on the result of
the evaluation. Id. As the Examiner finds, Kekki discloses "a method and
system for ... estimating [a] load [(bandwidth usage)] of the link [(channel)]
with a predetermined threshold [(bandwidth of the channel]) ... to
determine ... excess [of] bandwidth of the channel." Ans. 9. Thus,
contrary to Appellants' contention (App. Br. 9), the Examiner finds, and we
agree, Kekki at least suggests an indicator of "excess bandwidth on a
channel" and a compressor to "select a reduced compression level only
based on said indicator." Claim 1.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "any modification
of Mabuchi that does not include a teaching of altering of header
compression based on a quality of a channel would teach away from
Mabuchi" and that "Kekki's purported teaching of altering header
6
Appeal2017-009300
Application 14/017,935
compression based on excess bandwidth teaches away from Mabuchi."
App. Br. 7. Here, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
that Mabuchi at least suggests an "indicator" that indicates an "excess
bandwidth on a channel." Final Act. 8-9. We find that Mabuchi does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the claimed
solution of Kekki to provide header compression based on channel
load/bandwidth. See In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants have presented no evidence that combining the two header
compression methods of Mabuchi and Kekki would have been "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)). Instead, we
find such a combination of references in the same field of endeavor would
have been well within the ordinary level of skill of the art. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 417. In particular, we find that Appellants' invention is simply a
modification of familiar prior art methods of header compression, which
would have realized a predictable result to the skilled artisan. The skilled
artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 15 falling therewith (App.
Br. 11), and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depending respectively
therefrom (id.), over Mabuchi and Kekki.
35 USC§ 103(a) over Mabuchi and Dinan
Appellants repeat that "any modification of Mabuchi that does not
include a teaching of altering of [a] header compression based on a quality
of a channel would teach away from Mabuchi." App. Br. 12. Although
7
Appeal2017-009300
Application 14/017,935
Appellants concede Dinan teaches "an indication of channel capacity" which
is "fed back to determine whether to adjust compression of a packet header"
(id. at 12-13), Appellants contend Dinan "teaches that both [an] indication
of channel reliability and an indication of channel capacity" are used to
determine the operational modes. Id. Thus, Appellants contend the
Examiner "ignores Dinan's explicit requirement that both its purported
indicator of excess capacity and its purported indicator of channel quality
must be used to select a compression level of its headers." Id. at 14.
Here, we also find no error with the Examiner's combination of
Mabuchi and Dinan to reject the claims and agree with the Examiner's
ultimate conclusion that claims would have been obvious over the combined
references.
As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
Mabuchi' s "indicator" also indicates an "excess bandwidth on a channel."
Final Act. 8-9. That is, as discussed, although Appellants contend
Mabuchi' s altering of header compression is based on the quality of the
channel (App. Br. 12), Mabuchi's bandwidth varies inversely with the
channel quality. FF 1.
We also agree with the Examiner's finding that "Dinan discloses a
method and system for selecting a compression level based on an indicator
of excess capacity by comparing an estimated number of free transmission
slots with predetermined threshold or an estimated amount of free buffer
space with predetermined threshold in order to generate an indicator of
excess capacity." Ans. 12; FF 3. Significantly, Appellants concede that
Dinan teaches "an indication of channel capacity" which is "fed back to
8
Appeal2017-009300
Application 14/017,935
determine whether to adjust compression of a packet header." App. Br. 12-
13.
Although Appellants contend that "any modification of Mabuchi that
does not include a teaching of altering of [a] header compression based on a
quality of a channel would teach away from Mabuchi" because Dinan
"teaches both an indication of channel reliability and an indication of
channel capacity" are used to determine the operational modes (App. Br. 12-
13), Appellants are viewing the references from a different perspective than
that of the Examiner. The issue here is not whether the ordinarily skilled
artisan would have bodily incorporated the entire method of Dinan for
altering the header compression into the header compression method of
Mabuchi. Instead, as the Examiner explains, "it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the teaching of selecting
compression level based on the load of the channel which used to convey the
packets between the devices into the teaching of Mabuchi." Final Act. 9.
Here, we agree with the Examiner's reliance on Mabuchi for
disclosing and suggesting an "indicator" that indicates an "excess bandwidth
on a channel" wherein reduced compression level is selected "only" based
on the indicator. Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner only relies on Dinan for
teaching and suggesting selecting a compression level based on an indicator
of excess capacity "by comparing an estimated number of free transmission
slots with predetermined threshold or an estimated amount of free buffer
space with predetermined threshold in order to generate an indicator of
excess capacity." Ans. 12. Mabuchi does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage investigation into the claimed solution of Dinan to
provide excess capacity by applying such comparison. See In re Fulton, 391
9
Appeal2017-009300
Application 14/017,935
F.3d at 1201. Thus, such a combination of references in the same field of
endeavor would have been well within the ordinary level of skill of the art.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Here, we find that Appellants' invention is
simply a modification of familiar prior art teachings that would have realized
a predictable result to the skilled artisan. Id. at 398.
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 15 falling therewith (App.
Br. 14), and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depending respectively
therefrom (id. at 15), over Mabuchi and Dinan.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRJ'v1ED
10