Ex Parte Kotha et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

12764232 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 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.
12/764,232 04/21/2010 Saikrishna M. Kotha DC-17860 6990
33438 7590 06/01/2017
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
EXAMINER
YOUNG, STEVE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2017 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):
tmunoz @ tcchlaw. com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAIKRISHNA M. KOTHA and GAURAV CHAWLA
Appeal 2016-007919
Application 12/764,232
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LARRY J. HUME, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1, 4—7, 10-13, and 16—18. See Claims
Appx. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Dell Products L.P., as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 9, 2015, “App. Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed June 15, 2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action
Appeal 2016-007919
Application 12/764,232
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods for enabling the use of a
device to control multiple devices that participate in the presentation of
content. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. The claims have not been
argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from
reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below with some
formatting added:
1. A method for enabling traffic for a particular source to be
paused on a particular priority queue, the particular source
corresponding to a logical link of a physical network link, the
physical network link including a corresponding independent
queue, the method comprising:
identifying the physical network link by a priority field;
determining when a particular source is responsible for
network congestion;
generating a source specific pause frame, the source
specific pause frame being directed to the particular source
responsible for the congestion; and
pausing traffic generated by the particular source in
response to the source specific pause frame; and
(mailed July 17, 2015, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed April 21,
2010, “Spec.”) for their respective details.
2
Appeal 2016-007919
Application 12/764,232
wherein the source specific pause frame conforms
to a Data Center Bridging (DCB) standard;
the DCB standard includes a Priority Based Flow
Control (PFC) capability, the source specific pause frame
being included within PFC capability;
handling of the source specific pause frame is
different from handling of a standard PFC frame, the
handling of the source specific pause frame triggering an
affected priority queue to rearrange itself to transmit
packets from other sources contributing to the affected
priority queue while pausing packets from a source
causing the congestion;
the source specific pause frame allows a switch to
specify both a media access control (MAC) address and a
priority queue when sending the source specific pause
frame, the switch specifying the MAC address and the
priority queue via a unicast address; and,
an operation code corresponding to a reserved
number is used to specify the source specific pause
frame.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Jain US 7,761,589 B1 Filed Nov. 4, 2003
Croft, Jr., et al, (“Croft”) US 7,948,883 B1 Filed July 12, 2007
Mikkel Hagen, Data Center Bridging Tutorial, https://www.iol.unh.edu/
services/testing/dcb/training/ (“Hagen”).
3
Appeal 2016-007919
Application 12/764,232
Claims 1, 4—7, 10-13, and 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Jain, Croft, and Hagen. Final Act. 2—17.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 4—7, 10-13, and 16—18
in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner erred. We have considered
in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the
Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible
error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief
and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are
unpatentable. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer, to
the extent consistent with our analysis below. We provide the following
explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings
primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as
they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4—6.
Claims 1,4-7,10-13, and 16-18: Obviousness over
Jain, Croft, and Hagen
Appellants argue all claims in view of the limitations of Claim 1.
App. Br. 5—6.
Source-specific pause frame.
We find the Examiner has made extensive findings with respect to the
claimed “source specific pause frame.” See Final Act 3^4; Ans. 18.
4
Appeal 2016-007919
Application 12/764,232
Appellants’ traversal merely concludes the claim limitations
distinguish over Jain’s teachings:
However, it is respectfully submitted that generating a source
specific pause frame and pausing traffic generated by the
particular source in response to the source specific pause frame
is patentably distinct from the VLAN tagging with a PAUSE
frame mechanism disclosed by Jain.
App. Br. 4. Appellants do not file a reply brief.
Appellants’ conclusory arguments are unpersuasive. See, e.g., Ex
parte Cabral, No. 2010-001572, 2012 WL 683718, at *3 (BPAI 2012) (non-
precedential) (“Apart from summarily asserting that Prabhakar does not
teach or suggest the features of the dependent claims . . . Appellants do not
particularly show error in the Examiner’s rejection. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (noting that an argument that merely points out what a
claim recites is unpersuasive)”); see also Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-
004693, 2009 WL 2477843 (BPAI 2009) (informative) (“[W]e find that the
Examiner has made extensive specific fact finding . . . with respect to each
of the argued claims. Appellants’ argument. . . repeatedly restates elements
of the claim language and simply argues that the elements are missing from
the reference. However, Appellants do not present any arguments to explain
why the Examiner’s explicit fact finding is in error.”). Attorney argument is
not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can it
take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549
F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977). Lawyers’ arguments and conclusory
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
5
Appeal 2016-007919
Application 12/764,232
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Arguments of counsel
cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence).
Data Center Bridging (DCB) standard including
a Priority Based Flow Control (PFC) capability
The Examiner makes extensive findings regarding the claimed Data
Center Bridging (DCB) standard and the Priority Based Flow Control (PFC)
capability. See Final Act. 4, 6; Ans. 19.
Appellants merely present a conclusory argument that:
Hagen generally discloses Data Center Bridging, there is no
disclosure or suggestion within Hagen of a source specific
pause frame (where the source specific pause frame is directed
to the particular source responsible for the congestion)
conforming to a Data Center Bridging (DCB) standard, much
less where the DCB standard includes a Priority Based Flow
Control (PFC) capability and the source specific pause frame is
included within the PFC capability.
App. Br. 4. Appellants do not file a reply brief.
For the reasons discussed above, we find Appellants’ conclusory
arguments are unpersuasive.
Wherein handling of the source specific pause frame is
different from handling of a standard PFC frame.
The Examiner makes extensive findings that Jain teaches handling of
source-specific pause frames differs from that of standard PFC frames. See
Final Act. 4; Ans. 19.
6
Appeal 2016-007919
Application 12/764,232
Appellants merely present a conclusory argument that:
handling of the source specific pause frame being different
from handling of a standard PFC frame is patentably distinct
from the VLAN tagging of Jain. Additionally, it is respectfully
submitted that the handling of a PAUSE frame of Jain is not a
disclosure or suggestion of the handling of the source specific
pause frame triggering an affected priority queue to rearrange
itself to transmit packets from other sources contributing to the
affected priority queue while pausing packets from a source
causing the congestion.
App. Br. 5. Appellants do not file a reply brief.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ conclusory arguments
are unpersuasive.
A switch specifying both a media access control (MAC) address
and a priority queue.
The Examiner makes extensive findings that Jain teaches the source-
specific pause frame allows a switch to specify both a MAC address and a
priority queue when sending a source-specific pause frame, including via a
unicast address. See Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 19—21.
Appellants argue:
a source specific pause frame allowing a switch to specify both
a media access control (MAC) address and a priority queue
when sending the source specific pause frame as disclosed and
claimed is patentably distinct from the priority mask field of
Jain.
7
Appeal 2016-007919
Application 12/764,232
Appellants further argue:
nowhere within Jain is there any disclosure or suggestion of the
switch specifying the MAC address and the priority queue via a
unicast address.
App. Br. 5. Appellants do not file a reply brief.
For the reasons discussed above, we find Appellants’ conclusory
arguments are unpersuasive.
Operation code.
The Examiner finds an operation code corresponding to a reserved
number is used to specify the source-specific pause frame. See Final Act. 5;
Ans. 22.
Appellants argue:
nowhere within the cited portion of Jain (or anywhere else in
Jain) is there any disclosure or suggestion of an operation code
corresponding to a reserved number being used to specify the
source specific pause frame. . . . This deficiency of Jain is not
cured by Croft of [sic “or”] Hagen.
App. Br. 5—6. Appellants do not file a reply brief.
For the reasons discussed above, we find Appellants’ conclusory
arguments are unpersuasive.
8
Appeal 2016-007919
Application 12/764,232
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of Claims 1, 4—7, 10—13, and
16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9