Ex Parte GOYAL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 2018

14502743 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/502,743 09/30/2014 46363 7590 12/03/2018 Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC Nokia 12 Christopher Way Suite 105 Eatontown, NJ 07724 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR AMIT GOYAL 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. 816315-US-NP 8598 EXAMINER SLOMS, NICHOLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2476 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/03/2018 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): docketing@trbklaw.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte AMIT GOYAL, ABDUL RAHIM P ALAKKA TTU KAREEM, and V ACHASP ATHI PETER KOMPELLA 1 Appeal 2018-004115 Application 14/502,743 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-7, 9-19, 21, 23, and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3 Appeal 2018-004115 Application 14/502,743 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to "the field of network management and, more particularly but not exclusively, to management of traffic switchover between redundant pairs of nodes in a network." Spec. 1: 11-13. Specifically, Appellants update the routing tables of an intermediate node (Node C) "such that packets do not get 'black holed' (lost or discarded) at Node C, but instead are propagated by Node C toward Node A [ first node] until such time as the route to Node B [ second node] becomes the preferred packet forwarding route in Node C's routing table." Spec. 4:27-30 Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for reducing traffic loss, comprising: establishing a tunnel between a first node and a second node, wherein the first node and the second node are associated as a redundant node pair; and updating routing tables, based on an indication of a redundant node pair switchover in which the second node enters an active state in place of the first node, to trigger a routing protocol to cause intermediate nodes to converge to a state in which the intermediate nodes prefer routing traffic toward the second node over routing traffic toward the first node; wherein packets routed by intermediate nodes toward the first node prior to routing protocol convergence to the second node are routed from the first node to the second node via the tunnel between the first node and the second node. REJECTIONS and REFERENCES The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4---6, 9-11, 14--16, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Kini (US 2013/0343180 Al, published December 26, 2013) and Lehrschall (US 7,827,307 B2, issued November 2, 2010). 2 Appeal 2018-004115 Application 14/502,743 The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Kini, Lehrschall, and Trost (US 8,243,589 issued August 14, 2012). The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Kini, Lehrschall, and Abu-Amara (US 2013/0133063 Al, published May 23, 2013). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Kini discloses all the claim limitations except for the claim limitation "updating routing tables, ... to trigger a routing protocol to cause intermediate nodes to converge to a state in which the intermediate nodes prefer routing traffic toward the second node over routing traffic toward the first node." Final Act. 3--4 (citing Kini ,r,r 21-26, Fig. 1). The Examiner finds Lehrschall discloses this limitation. Id. The Examiner finds Kini' s nodes BN 1 and BN2 represent the claimed first and second nodes, respectively, and nodes ANI, SNI, and nodes there between, are intermediate nodes. Ans. 3. Further, the Examiner finds Kini does not explicitly recite a routing table, and relies on Lehrschall for teaching "updating routing tables in response to network changes. For instance, Lehrschall states ' [ wherein a] next-hop router [is] configured to update a routing table' (col. 8, lines 16-17)." Ans. 4. Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding Lehrschall discloses the updating limitation because Lehrschall's (a) primary router (first node) informs the media gateway of a failure so the media gateway can switch to a secondary path to a backup router, and (b) a routing table at the next-hop router is updated to replace the primary path connection with the secondary 3 Appeal 2018-004115 Application 14/502,743 path connection for ingress data sent from the next-hop router toward the media gateway via redundant routers. App. Br. 17. That is, Appellants assert Lehrschall' s functions (a) and (b) do not teach or suggest updating routing tables at the primary router (first node) and the updating triggering a routing protocol causing intermediate nodes to converge. App. Br. 18. Rather, Lehrschall merely teaches the primary router informs the media gateway of a failure so the media gateway can switch to a secondary path ( second node) to the backup router: there is no teaching or suggestion of updating routing tables which trigger a routing protocol causing intermediate nodes to converge, as claimed. Id. We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own. Ans. 3-7. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner Kini does not explicitly disclose updating routing tables, but does disclose router converged networks. Ans. 4, see also Kini's paragraphs 21-26, particularly 21-22. As noted supra, Lehrschall, not Kini, teaches updating routing tables. Further, Kini discloses resolving "the loss of data traffic caused by a switchover in the access network" by having BNl establishing a tunnel to BN2 before any switchover [from BNl to BN2] occurs. Kini ,r,r 21-22. This is consistent with Appellants' invention. See Spec. 5: 1-16. Appellants' arguments with respect to Kini fail to consider the combined teachings of Kini and Lehrschall, but merely recite the claim language and state Kini does not provide any basis for triggering a routing protocol to cause nodes to converge, without disputing the Examiner's specific findings in Kini's 4 Appeal 2018-004115 Application 14/502,743 paragraph 22 and how this can be combined with Lehrschall' s teachings. Reply Br. 3. As to the Examiner's findings regarding Lehrschall teaching updating routing tables (see Ans. 4---6), Appellants again merely recite the claim language and state neither Kini nor Lehrschall teach or suggest this limitation, without sufficient evidence disputing the Examiner's findings. Reply Br. 4--7. For example, Lehrschall teaches that "said next-hop router being configured to update a routing table of said next-hop router in response to notification of said network interface failure" (8: 16-18). Appellants' argument against Kini separately from Lehrschall does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981). As to, independent claims 21, 23, and 24, Appellants assert these claims include additional features and context not included in independent claims 1, 11, and 19, but only argue the combination of Kini and Lehrschall does not teach a processor configured to update routing information (App. Br. 22-23), which is similarly claimed in claim 1. Appellants' Reply Brief newly adds that claim 21 recites the intermediate node receives packets sent toward the first node (Reply Br. 9), claim 23 recites updating the first node based on the switch from the active state to the standby state (Reply Br. 10), and claim 24 recites updating the first node based on the switch from the standby state to the active state (Reply Br. 12-13). Appellants contend the Examiner has not addressed these limitations except to incorrectly find 5 Appeal 2018-004115 Application 14/502,743 Kini's paragraphs 21 and 22 (Ans. 6) support these limitations. We do not agree. Rather, we agree with the Examiner's rational findings supported by Kini' s paragraphs 21 and 22, which Appellants do not address with particularity. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 19, 21, 23, and 24, and dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 12-18, for which no substantive arguments were provided. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-19, 21, 23, and 24 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6