Ex Parte Fourcand

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 2014

11735604 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2014)

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. 11/735,604 04/16/2007 Serge Francois Fourcand 4194-04800 2300 89394 7590 08/22/2014 Futurewei Technologies, Inc. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. 5601 Granite Parkway Suite 500 Plano, TX 75024 EXAMINER HOANG, THAI D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2014 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 SERGE FRANCOIS FOURCAND ____________ Appeal 2012-001202 Application 11/735,604 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ANDREW J. DILLON, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to a network component comprising a processor configured to implement a method comprising promoting the communication of a frame within a synchronization window, wherein the frame comprises a plurality of data types carried in a plurality of timeslots, and wherein each timeslot is assigned to carry one of the data types, identifying an idle timeslot that is assigned to carry a first data type, and inserting a second data type into the idle timeslot. See Abstract. Appeal 2012-001202 Application 11/735,604 2 Claims 1 and 10, which are reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized, are illustrative of the claimed invention: 1. A network component comprising: a processor coupled to a memory and configured to implement a method comprising: promoting the communication of a frame within a synchronization window, wherein the frame comprises a plurality of data types carried in a plurality of timeslots, and wherein each timeslot is assigned to carry one of the data types; identifying an idle timeslot that is assigned to carry a first data type; and inserting a second data type into the idle timeslot. 10. A method comprising: receiving a data stream comprising a plurality of timeslots, wherein each timeslot is assigned to carry one of a plurality of data types; and determining whether one of the timeslots assigned to carry a first data type contains a second data type. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Edem US 5,361,261 Nov. 1, 1994 Pei US 6,272,109 B1 Aug. 7, 2001 Yuang US 6,859,458 B2 Feb. 22, 2005 THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yuang. Ans. 4–5. 1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 1–6, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yuang and Pei. Ans. 5–9. 1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 11, 2011; and the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 24, 2011. Appeal 2012-001202 Application 11/735,604 3 3. The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yuang, Pei and Edem. Ans. 8, 9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8–27) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 5–21) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions with respect to claims 1–5 and 7–20. We agree with Appellant with respect to claim 6. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken with respect to claims 1–5 and 7–20 (Ans. 4–9), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer, with respect to claims 1–5 and 7– 20, in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 10–13). We disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion with respect to claim 6. We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 10, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yuang based upon the failure of Yuang to disclose “determining whether one of the timeslots assigned to carry a first data type contains a second data type” as set forth in claim 10. App. Br. 8–13. Specifically, Appellant argues that Yuang “neither places ABR cells into SCR slots nor places SCR cells into ABR slots, and thus fails to teach determining whether one of the timeslots assigned to carry a first data type contains a second data type.” Id. at 9. Appeal 2012-001202 Application 11/735,604 4 Appellant’s position is based upon an interpretation of Figure 1 of Yuang, which is depicted below: As illustrated, Figure 1 of Yuang depicts the structure of the frame in an uplink channel. Appellant argues that Yuang, within the C-type Bandwidth, does not place SCR cells into ABR slots “because the ABR slots are not designated as ABR slots until after the number of SCR slots have been determined. . . ” Id. The Examiner finds that, within Yuang, the C-type Bandwidth is fixed and thus, the initial prediction of SCR timeslots prior to starting a frame necessarily dictates that the remainder of the timeslots within the C-type Bandwidth are ABR slots. That is, the total number of slots of C-type bandwidth, less the slots initially designated as SCR slots, must necessarily be designated as ABR slots. Thereafter, in the event of an SCR timeslot collision, and the designation of additional SCR slots, timeslots which were initially designated as ABR slots become designated as SCR slots, meeting the claimed limitation of a timeslot assigned to carry a first data type (ABR) conatins a second data type (SCR). Ans. 10–11. We concur with the Examiner. Upon the initial designation of SCR timeslots within the limited bandwidth of the C-type Bandwidth, we find the remaining timeslots are effectively designated as ABR slots. Thereafter, in the event of an SCR timeslot collision, which requires additional SCR Appeal 2012-001202 Application 11/735,604 5 timeslots to be designated, selected timeslots previously within the ABR timeslot region of the C-type Bandwidth are thereafter utilized as SCR timeslots, meeting the claimed limitation. With regard to claim 15, Appellant argues that Yuang fails to determine whether a timeslot assigned to carry a first data type contains a second data type, as argued above, and that further, Yuang fails to disclose processing data in accordance with that determination. App. Br. 13–14. The Examiner finds that claim 15 depends from claim 10 and merely recites the additional step of “processing each of the timeslots assigned to carry the first data type in accordance with the determination.” Ans. 11. We find the Examiner did not err in view of the fact that Yuang clearly teaches processing SCR and ABR timeslots in accordance with the type of data contained within each timeslot. With regard to claims 1–9, 12–14, and 16–20, Appellant argues the cited references fail to disclose or suggest “identifying an idle timeslot that is assigned to carry a first data type” and then “inserting a second data type into the idle timeslot” as set forth in claim 1; or, “communicating a frame comprising a portion assigned to carry high priority data; determining whether a part of the portion is not carrying the high priority data; and reusing the part of the portion to carry a low priority data,” as set forth in claim 16. App. Br. 14–21 and 26–27. Specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance upon Pei for teaching transmitting a low priority cell in a timeslot while processing high priority cells is improper. Appellant argues that Pei fails to teach transmission of a low priority cell within a high priority timeslot since Pei’s scheduler does not assign a timeslot to carry high priority data until after verifying that a high priority cell is ready to be sent. App. Br. 15–16. Appeal 2012-001202 Application 11/735,604 6 The Examiner finds that Pei’s Abstract discloses promoting the communication of a frame within a synchronization window (ATM window), wherein each timeslot of the time frame is assigned to carry one of the data types (high priority for constant bit rate CBR, low priority for available bit rate ABR); identifying an idle timeslot that is assigned to carry a first data type; and inserting a second data type into the idle timeslot. Ans. 6. Thus, the Examiner urges that in the absence of a high priority cell to be transmitted in a timeslot designated for that purpose, a low priority cell is transmitted. Id. We agree with the Examiner. The determination by Pei that a high priority service did not result in a cell transmission during a time slot and the use, thereafter, of that time slot for transmission of a low priority cell suggests the claimed “second data type into the idle timeslot” of claim 1, as well as the “reusing the part of the portion to carry a low priority data” of claim 16. With respect to claims 2–4, we concur with the Examiner’s reasoning that the use of a status bit to indicate the content or active/inactive status of a timeslot is well known in the art. Ans. 12. Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s allegation that the use of a status bit within a timeslot is well known in the art, urging that such a finding is “inappropriate.” Reply Br. 15. We are not persuaded. An adequate traverse must contain adequate information or argument to create on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying notice of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). Appellant’s argument fails to create such reasonable doubt. Appeal 2012-001202 Application 11/735,604 7 Appellant argues, with respect to claim 6, that the cited references fail to show or suggest “interrupting the second data type stream by inserting the first data type into the active timeslot.” Appellant urges that Yuang and Pei fail to show or suggest inserting a second data type into an idle timeslot, identifying an active timeslot following the idle timeslot and interrupting a second data type stream by inserting a first data type into the active timeslot. App. Br. 25–26. The Examiner finds that Pei clearly discloses the features recited in claim 6: identifying an active timeslot (high priority CBR slots) following the idle timeslot (ABR slots), the active time slot assigned to carry the first data type (High priority CBR cells); and interrupting the second data type stream (ABR) by inserting the first data type into the active timeslot (step 7, interrupting ABR cells to transmit high priority CBR cells). Ans. 13. We disagree with the Examiner. While we agree that the cited references suggest the utilization of an idle timeslot assigned to one data type to be assigned to as second data type, we find no suggestion of interrupting an active timeslot following the idle timeslot and interrupting the second type data stream by inserting a first data type. We, therefore, find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 based upon the argument urged above with respect to claim 3. App. Br. 26. For the reasons we set forth above, we are unpersuaded by the Appellant’s argument and we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 14. Appeal 2012-001202 Application 11/735,604 8 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–5 and 7–20. The Examiner did err in the rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yuang and Pei. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5 and 7–20 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 6 is reversed. 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-IN-PART rwk