Ex Parte Kotrla et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2014

12205955 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte SCOTT R. KOTRLA, CHRISTOPHER N. DELREGNO, MATTHEW W. TURLINGTON, MICHAEL U. BENCHECK, and RICHARD C. SCHELL ________________ Appeal 2012-010824 Application 12/205,955 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal 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). The Invention The Appellants claim a method, apparatus, and system for routing network data traffic. Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal 2012-010824 Application 12/205,955 2 1. A method comprising: measuring a performance metric of one or more network interfaces of an initial network path providing traffic flow across a network; determining whether the measured performance metric for each network interface satisfies a corresponding predetermined threshold; and adjusting an interface metric value of each network interface for which the measured performance metric of the network interface fails to satisfy the corresponding predetermined threshold. The References Kelty US 6,690,884 B1 Feb. 10, 2004 Vieregge US 6,915,463 B2 July 5, 2005 Peeters US 7,477,843 B1 Jan. 13, 2009 Way US 2009/0022489 A1 Jan. 22, 2009 The Rejections The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Kelty, claims 2–4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kelty in view of Peeters, claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kelty in view of Way, claims 14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kelty in view of Vieregge, claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kelty in view of Vieregge and Peeters and claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kelty in view of Vieregge and Way. OPINION We reverse the rejections. We need to address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 9, and 14. Claim 1 requires “adjusting an interface metric value of each network interface for which the measured performance metric of the network interface fails to satisfy the corresponding predetermined threshold,” claim 9 requires “a control module configured to trigger an adjustment of an interface metric value of each network interface Appeal 2012-010824 Application 12/205,955 3 for which the measured performance metric of the network interface fails to satisfy the corresponding predetermined threshold” and claim 14 requires “a control module configured to adjust an interface metric value of each network interface for which the measured performance metric of the network interface fails to satisfy the corresponding predetermined threshold.” To meet those claim limitations the Examiner relies upon Kelty (Ans. 4–5, 10). Kelty discloses an optical transmission system (col. 1, ll. 19–20) wherein: Corrected error monitoring and other signal performance monitoring, such as optical signal to noise ratio monitoring, can be used to identify the fibers 14 and spans in the system 10 where signal degradation is occurring. The signal monitoring information along the transmission path 32 can [be] used to provision new optical paths to bypass only the degraded portions and specifically identify the degraded portions for service personnel. [col. 7, ll. 13-20] . . . . For example, when the corrected errors, error rate or imbalance, or other signal quality measure reaches a switch threshold value, the network management system 22 can provision the second optical path 322 and the nodes 12 can switch traffic to the newly provisioned second optical path 322. The provisioning and switching can be done in steps; for example by provisioning the second optical path 322, when the quality measure reaches a provisioning threshold value, which precedes the switch value. [col. 7, ll. 35-43] “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior Appeal 2012-010824 Application 12/205,955 4 art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255–56 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner argues that Kelty’s signal quality measure, which the Examiner refers to as a line parameter, corresponds to the Appellants’ interface metric value, and that switching from a path in which the signal quality measure has reached a threshold value to a path in which the signal quality measure is below the threshold value adjusts the interface metric value (Ans. 14–15). “‘[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Like the Appellants’ minimum required latency, packet loss and jitter (Spec. ¶ 29), Kelty’s signal quality measure, such as signal-to-noise ratio, falls within the Appellants’ claim term “performance metric.” The Appellants’ exemplified interface metric value, however, is a cost used to reroute data traffic (Spec. ¶¶ 29-34). The Examiner has not established that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the Appellants’ claim term “interface metric value” in view of the Appellants’ Specification encompasses Kelty’s signal quality measure. Thus, the Examiner has not established that Kelty discloses each limitation of the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, we reverse that rejection. The Examiner also has not established that the Appellants’ interface metric value would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over Kelty, alone or in combination with the Appeal 2012-010824 Application 12/205,955 5 other applied references (Ans. 6–14). Hence, we reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION/ORDER The rejections of claims 1, 6, 9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Kelty, claims 2–4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kelty in view of Peeters, claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kelty in view of Way, claims 14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kelty in view of Vieregge, claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kelty in view of Vieregge and Peeters and claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kelty in view of Vieregge and Way are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED cdc