Ex Parte Limaye et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 2012

10284619 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

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. 10/284,619 10/31/2002 Pradeep Shrikrishna Limaye BAY-022 2015 7590 12/13/2012 Wilson & Ham PMB: 348 2530 Berryessa Road San Jose, CA 95132 EXAMINER ZHU, BO HUI ALVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/13/2012 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 PRADEEP SHRIKRISHNA LIMAYE, SASISEKHARAN RAGURAM, and SANTHANAM SRINIVASAN ____________ Appeal 2010-005471 Application 10/284,619 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005471 Application 10/284,619 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-19. Claim 20 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 1. A telecommunications system comprising: a mesh transport network that comprises a plurality of nodes and a plurality of communications links, wherein said mesh transport network defines a first address space, wherein each of said plurality of nodes has a unique address in said first address space and a unique address in at least one ring network, and wherein each of said plurality of communications links is associated with at least one ring network; and a provisioning network that is logically distinct from said mesh transport network for controlling said plurality of nodes, wherein the provisioning network is configured to provision a protected service through both service bandwidth and protection bandwidth in each of at least two interlocking rings. Prior Art Kremer US 5,406,549 Apr. 11, 1995 Al-Salameh US 6,262,820 B1 July 17, 2001 Deboer US 2002/0141334 A1 Oct. 3, 2002 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 5, 6, 9-11, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Deboer. Appeal 2010-005471 Application 10/284,619 3 Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deboer. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deboer and Kremer. Claims 4 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deboer and Al-Salameh. ANALYSIS Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 9-11 According to Appellants, Deboer does not describe “provision[ing] a protected service through both service bandwidth and protection bandwidth in each of at least two interlocking rings” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8. Appellants contend that Deboer allocates protection bandwidth, but not working bandwidth, in Ring Y for data traffic affected by resource failure 14 in Ring X. Appellants also contend that Deboer does not provision working bandwidth and protection bandwidth in Ring Y. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 7-8. Appellants’ arguments are inconsistent with Figures 1 and 3A of Deboer, which show rings X and Y provisioned with both working and protection bandwidth 8, 10. See ¶ [0033] (cited at Ans. 14) (“Between matched nodes 4b and 4e, span 6g comprises only working bandwidth 8g, with no provisioned protection bandwidth 10. Within each of the remaining spans 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e and 6f both working and protection bandwidth 8, 10 are provisioned in a conventional manner.” (emphasis added)). Appellants’ arguments are also inconsistent with the background section of Deboer, which discloses that the prior art provisioned fully redundant protection Appeal 2010-005471 Application 10/284,619 4 bandwidth. See ¶ [0007] (“A disadvantage of the [prior art] network architecture is that its high reliability is dependent on the provisioning of fully redundant network resources. This requirement for a 1:1 ratio of working:protection bandwidth capacity requires network service providers to install and maintain duplicate sets of network nodes and optical fibers, much of which remains idle for significant periods of time.”). We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants have not presented arguments for separate patentability of claims 5, 6, and 9- 11, but rather rely on those presented for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive. Section 102 rejection of claims 13-16 Appellants contend that Deboer does not describe “a fault notification network that is logically distinct from said mesh transport network” as recited in claim 13. Reply Br. 8-9.1 According to Appellants, Deboer describes a network with working bandwidth and protection bandwidth, and the protection bandwidth can transport a search stack between nodes. Reply Br. 9. Appellants contend that the path of the search stack described by Deboer is the same path as data payload traffic; therefore, the logical path of the search stack is not different from the logical path of the payload data (i.e., logically distinct from the logical path of the mesh transport network). Reply Br. 10. Because the scope of claim 13 does not exclude the fault notification network from transporting payload traffic, Appellants’ argument is not 1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants’ also raised this contention in the arguments regarding claim 21, now allowed. App. Br. 12-13. Appeal 2010-005471 Application 10/284,619 5 commensurate with the scope of claim 13. Claim 13 recites that the fault notification network is logically distinct from a mesh transport network. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to show that the working bandwidth and protection bandwidth described by Deboer (for example, in paragraphs 7, 33, and 36-37) are not logically distinct networks within the meaning of claim 13. Appellants have also not provided a definition of fault notification network that excludes the protection path described by Deboer. We sustain the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants have not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims 14-16 which fall with claim 13. Section 103 rejection of claim 4 Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 4, but instead rely on those presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 15-16) which we find unpersuasive. Section 103 rejection of claim 12 Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 12, but instead rely on those presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 15) which we find unpersuasive. Section 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2, 3, 7, and 8, but rely on those presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 15) which we find unpersuasive. Appeal 2010-005471 Application 10/284,619 6 Section 103 rejection of claims 17 and 19 Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 17 and 19, but rely on those presented for claim 13 (App. Br. 15) which we find unpersuasive. Section 103 rejection of claim 18 Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 18, but rely on those presented for claim 13 (App. Br. 16) which we find unpersuasive. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9-11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Deboer is affirmed. The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deboer is affirmed. The rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deboer and Kremer is affirmed. The rejection of claims 4 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deboer and Al-Salameh is affirmed. 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Appeal 2010-005471 Application 10/284,619 7 babc