Ex Parte Ishikawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2017

13817191 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017)

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.
13/817,191 02/15/2013 Hirokazu Ishikawa Q201689 2556
23373 7590 03/23/2017
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
EXAMINER
CHIOU, ALBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2017 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROKAZUISHIKAWA and TOMOAKI TAKAGI
Appeal 2016-003814
Application 13/817,1911
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT A. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—7, which constitute the only pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a programmable controller (PLC) that
controls industrial devices. Abstract; Spec. 1—3. Claim 1 is exemplary of
the matter on appeal (disputed limitations emphasized):
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Mitsubishi Electric
Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003814
Application 13/817,191
1. A programmable controller provided with an input/output
memory area having a device value stored therein which responds,
when receiving a request for a device value from an upper-level device
connected to the programmable controller, with the requested device
value, the programmable controller comprising:
a connection unit that establishes a connection for each of a
plurality of applications running on the upper-level device and
performs reception of a request from the upper-level device and
transmission of a response to the upper-level device via the established
connection for each of the applications;
a communication buffer that temporarily stores therein requests
received by the connection unit for each connection;
a request processing unit that reads the device value requested by
the upper-level device from the input/output memory area;
a priority storage area that stores a setting of a priority level for
each connection; and
a communication scheduling unit that successively obtains
requests from the communication buffer, transfers the obtained requests
to the request processing unit, and
transfers the device value, which is read by the request
processing unit and corresponds to the transferred request, to the
connection unit as a response, wherein
the communication scheduling unit obtains the requests from the
communication buffer with a higher frequency for a connection for
which a higher priority is set in the priority storage area and obtains
the requests from the communication buffer with a lower frequency,
which is lower than the higher frequency and higher than zero, for a
connection for which a lower priority, which is lower than the higher
priority, is set in the priority storage area.
App. Br. 20-21 (Claims App.).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Radulescu (WO 2006/129294 Al; pub. Dec. 7, 2006).
Final Act. 2—5.
2
Appeal 2016-003814
Application 13/817,191
Claims 2 and 4—6 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Radulescu (WO 2006/129294 Al; Dec. 7, 2006) in
view of Jain et al. (US 5,633,859; iss. May 27, 1997) (“Jain”). Final Act. 5—
10.
Claim 7 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Radulescu, Jain, and Kam (Phil Kam and Craig Partridge,
"Improving round-trip time estimates in reliable transport protocols."
Association for Computing Machinery, 1987) (“Kam”). Final Act. 10-
11.
ANALYSIS
The § 102(b) rejections
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Radulescu discloses the
claim 1 limitation:
the communication scheduling unit obtains the requests from the
communication buffer with a higher frequency for a connection for
which a higher priority is set in the priority storage area and obtains
the requests from the communication buffer with a lower frequency,
which is lower than the higher frequency and higher than zero, for a
connection for which a lower priority, which is lower than the higher
priority, is set in the priority storage area.
App. Br. 9-14.
Appellants argue three reasons why Radulescu fails to disclose the
disputed limitation:
First, Radulescu does not disclose serving GS (Guaranteed Service )
traffic with higher frequency than BE (Best Effort) traffic because BE traffic
is resumed for ports which have become unused and, therefore, “Radulescu
simply discloses that the arbiter may suspend and resume service to certain
3
Appeal 2016-003814
Application 13/817,191
ports, which does not disclose, either expressly or inherently, the above-
noted features of claim 1.” App. Br. 12—13 (citing Radulescu 16:31 to 17:2).
Second:
Radulescu's disclosure of "Guaranteed Service" and "Best Effort" data
is a significantly different technical concept from the feature of
obtaining requests from a communication buffer with a certain
frequency according to a priority, on the other hand. As explained by
Radulescu, the technical distinction between GS traffic and BE traffic
is that GS traffic is a data stream with a "reservation" and as such, is
guaranteed a "minimum bandwidth and an upper bound of latency",
whereas BE traffic is a data stream without a "reservation”, and as such,
is transferred in slots which are not reserved or reserved but not used.
(Radulescu, page 3, lines 4-14). However, even assuming arguendo
that GS traffic is a higher "priority" than BE traffic, Radulescu does not
disclose, either explicitly or inherently, obtaining GS data at a higher
frequency than BE traffic. Priority is not the same as frequency. In
fact, FIGs. 5 and 6 of Radulescu illustrate that the packet transmission
frequency of the BE data is higher than that of the GS data (see FIGs. 5
and 6 of Radulescu, each illustrating the transmission of five packets of
BE data as compared to one packet of GS data), and as explained above,
the purpose of Radulescu is to add BE data to previously unused space
in GS slots.
Id. at 13.
Third, the “simplest case” presented by the Examiner in which there is
only one port and BE traffic must be suspended if GS traffic is present does
not disclose the limitation higher than zero. App. Br. 13—14 (citing
Advisory Act. 3). According to Appellants, the simplest case results in
“zero (i.e., suspended).” Id. at 14.
4
Appeal 2016-003814
Application 13/817,191
Regarding the first reason, the Examiner finds Radulescu discloses a
buffer providing two levels of service, which show packets including GS
and BE traffic. Ans. 12 (citing Figs. 5, 6). The Examiner finds Radulescu
discloses that "the arbiter suspends the ongoing BE traffic for which the
ports serve GS traffic," and that BE traffic may be resumed "when GS data
requiring these slots have finished during the particular slot." Id. (citing
Radulescu 16:30 to 17:15; see Fig. 6 where the second slot of GS traffic
results in the "suspension" of the BE traffic). The Examiner further finds:
However, the arbiter then determines that BE traffic may be resumed
in the same slot, and fills the remaining GS Slot with BE packets (pck3
and cpk4 in Fig. 6). The fact that a slot can contain both GS and BE
traffic indicates that both GS data and BE data may be serviced
simultaneously; in other words, the presence of GS data does not
necessarily exclude BE data from being serviced.
Id. at 12.
Regarding the second reason, the Examiner finds Radulescu results in
higher priority traffic (GS traffic) being serviced at a higher frequency than a
lower priority traffic. Id. The Examiner finds “[s]ince GS packets proceed
with priority and are not delayed, and BE traffic may experience delays due
to the preference of the system to serve GS traffic, a number of GS packets
is expected to take less time to service than a similar number of BE packets”
and “[as] the frequency of packets serviced is measured as the number of
packets serviced divided by the time required to service them, this means
that the frequency of servicing GS packets is higher than the frequency for
servicing BE packets.” Id. 12—13.
Regarding the third reason in which Appellants argue that during a
time in which BE traffic is suspended, the frequency of servicing is zero, the
Examiner finds such a measure of frequency would require examining
5
Appeal 2016-003814
Application 13/817,191
events over a period of time of a single time slot or less. Id. at 13. The
Examiner determines “the claim does not specifically detail the requirements
of a time period for measuring frequency, therefore it is evident that the
appellant's instance of one time slot is narrower than the claim allows.” Id.
The Examiner finds:
[w]hen considering a time period consisting of multiple time
slots, a brief "suspension" of traffic amounts to a delay that
results in less packets being serviced during that time period [and
w]hile this reduces the measured frequency of service, the
frequency is still greater than zero because a nonzero number of
packets are serviced.
Id.
Appellants also argue Radulescu does not disclose the claim 1
preamble limitation:
A programmable controller provided with an input/output
memory area having a device value stored therein which responds,
when receiving a request for a device value from an upper-level device
connected to the programmable controller, with the requested device
value.
App. Br. 14.
According to Appellants, the Examiner errs in finding the router of
Radulescu corresponds to the “programmable controller” of claim 1. Id. at
15 (citing Final Act. 2). In particular, the router of Radulescu is “merely a
data pipe between a master and a slave (IP4 and IP2 in Radulescu Fig. 2),
and does not perform the claimed function of the ‘programmable controller’
as recited.” Id. 15—16.
The Examiner finds Radulescu devices IP 1—IP5 communicate over a
network via routers R1-R5 in which data is transferred, including a “request
channel” and a “response channel.” Ans. 13—14 (citing Radulescu 8:16 to
6
Appeal 2016-003814
Application 13/817,191
9:8, 9:10—24, 18:9—24; Fig. 11). The Examiner finds “the device functioning
as the programmable controller includes the logic required to operate the
previously cited 'request channel' and 'response channel,' and therefore
provides functionality beyond a mere data pipe (namely, that of responding
to a request).” Id. at 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the findings and interpretations of the Examiner. We note the
Examiner’s findings and interpretations are reasonable and are not rebutted
by a Reply Brief. Appellants do not present persuasive arguments that the
claim terms should be limited to exclude the disclosure of Radulescu and
present no persuasive argument that the Examiner’s findings and claim
interpretations are unreasonable or overbroad. Claim terms in a patent
application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Radulescu discloses
dependent claim 3 which additionally recites wherein the connection unit
establishes a connection for each of the applications between a port
specified by a user of the upper-level device as a connection partner and a
port of the programmable controller specified by the user. App. Br. 16.
According to Appellants:
Radulescu merely discloses: "The communication (e.g. in a mobile
phone) can be based on sources and destinations for a data stream (e.g.,
a display driver to a display, or a camera to a memory), and/or based on
a server-client relationships (e.g., as in the internet)". This passage of
Radulescu does not mention anything about a "port specified by a user
of the upper-level device" or a "port of the programmable controller
7
Appeal 2016-003814
Application 13/817,191
specified by the user", and more generally, does not contemplate an
"upper level device" or mention a "port" at all.
App. Br. 16 (citing Radulescu 9:20-28).
The Examiner finds Radulescu discloses "[t]he communication (e.g.
in a mobile phone) can be based on sources and destinations for a data
stream (e.g., a display driver to a display or a camera to a memory)"; a
connection between a camera and a memory involves ports].” Final Act. 5
(citing Radulescu 9:20—28). The Examiner further finds:
Radulescu discloses in page 18, lines 9-24 (and diagrammed in figure
11) that "data is transferred among the different units of the electronic
device based on packets pck." However, in describing the
communication channels for transferring data, Radulescu discloses in
page 8, line 16 - page 9, line 8, that communication can be carried out
over a connection consisting of a "request channel" and a "response
channel." Each device, then, would require at least one port to use for
requests and one port to use for responses. Additionally in performing
a request for data transfer, the user must uniquely specify which ports
are to be used in order for a connection to be established between the
devices.
Ans. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. See also our conclusion regarding claiml,
supra.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3.
The § 103(a) rejections
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 22, and 4—7 as further detailed below. We
agree, instead, with the Examiner’s findings which are reasonable and not
2 We agree with the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 2 and we note
Appellants do not argue this rejection separately. Ans. 5—6.
8
Appeal 2016-003814
Application 13/817,191
rebutted by Appellants in a Reply Brief. App. Br. 16—19; Ans. 15—17. We
adopt the Examiner’s findings, which we incorporate herein by reference.
Regarding dependent claims 4—6, Appellants argue Jain does not
teach:
"a number-of-response storage area that stores the number of responses
to the upper-level device for at least each priority level" and "a state-
information calculation unit that calculates state information based on
the number of responses stored in the number-of-response storage area,
and stores the calculated state information in the number-of-response
device".
App. Br. 17.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Jain teaches “the
number-of-response storage area.” Id. (citing Final Act. 7; Jain 11:54—67).
In particular:
Jain discloses that the VC table is used to mark a bit "whenever a cell
from a VC [virtual channel] is seen". (Jain, col. 11, lines 61-65). Jain
does not, however, disclose that the VC table stores a "number of
responses to the upper-level device for at least each priority level", as
recited by claim 4. Thus, Jain also necessarily fails to teach or suggest
"a state-information calculation unit that calculates state information
based on the number of responses stored in the number-of response
storage area, and stores the calculated state information in the
number-of-response device", as recited by claim 4.
Id.
The Examiner finds Jain teaches the use of a VC table for tracking
cells and "if a data cell has been received at the switch, the received cell
count is incremented." Ans. 15 (citing Jain 11:54—67, 12:55 to 13:5). The
Examiner finds Radulescu performs the regulation of network traffic by
organizing connections into priority levels. Ans. 16 (citing Radulescu 4:30
to 5:9). The Examiner finds:
9
Appeal 2016-003814
Application 13/817,191
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to have applied the said teachings
of Jain and Radulescu by storing the number of responses for each
priority level. Jain teaches the storing of a number of responses for
multiple links in a network, while Radulescu further suggests that
network links can be grouped and regulated based on levels of priority.
Id.
Regarding the calculation and storage of state information based on
the stored number of responses, the Examiner finds Jain describes a process
for calculating the load level of a channel using a formula which shows the
load level is based on the received cell count. Id. (citing Jain 12:55 to 13:5,
11:35—40). The Examiner finds “[s]ince the load level is calculated from a
stored number of responses (i.e. received cells), it fulfills the limitation of
'state information based on the number of responses stored in the number-of-
response storage area' that is stored in the number-of-response device.” Id.
Regarding claim 7, Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding
Radulescu, Jain, and Kam teach “a set-time reset unit that resets a set value
of the time interval stored in the set-time storage area to a smaller value than
a previously set value when a time-out error occurs in the connection for
which the specific priority is set.” App. Br. 18. According to Appellants,
Kam, relied upon for the rejection of claim 7, does not teach to a smaller
value than a previously set value because Kam teaches “[wjhenever a time
occurs, virtually every TCP implementation increases the RTO by some
factor before retransmitting the unacknowledged data” and “[t]hus, Kam
discloses increasing an RTO when a time occurs, which is significantly
different from this above-noted feature of claim 7.” Id.
10
Appeal 2016-003814
Application 13/817,191
The Examiner finds:
The limitation recites the resetting of a time interval to a smaller value
than "a previously set value." However, this previously set value does
not refer to any specifically mentioned value, nor does it appear to
restrict itself to values involving a specific timer or connection. As
such, the claim only requires that the timer be reset to a value that is
smaller than any previously set value in the system. Kam discloses the
resetting of a timer to successively larger values as part of the technique
known as back-off (Kam, section 3.2 "Back-off). Kam further
discloses in the same section that "when the overload condition
disappears, packet loss stops and the TCPs reduce their RTO to their
normal SRTT-based values." However, in a network connection, it is
not uncommon for time-out errors to occur intermittently. In
considering the occurrence of a second time-out error occurring after a
first time-out error has occurred (in which the timer is increased
multiple times and eventually reset to its normal value), it is apparent
that the second time-out would immediately result in the timer being
reset to a new value that is smaller than the greatest value of the timer
set during the first time-out error. Therefore, Kam teaches the resetting
of a timer to a value smaller than a previously set value when a time­
out error occurs in the connection.
Although Kam does not explicitly teach the resetting of the timer
for a connection with specific priority, Radulescu in view of Jain
teaches the use of connections with priority, therefore it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was filed to have incorporated the teachings of Kam into Radulescu in
view of Jain by resetting the timer for a connection with specific
priority. Kam teaches the resetting of a timer to a value smaller than a
previous value for a connection, while Radulescu in view of Jain further
suggests that such connections can have specific priority.
Ans. 17.
11
Appeal 2016-003814
Application 13/817,191
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12