Ex Parte Mann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2017

13892672 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 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.
13/892,672 05/13/2013 Robert A. MANN ALC 3868 3518
76614 7590 10/26/2017
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
ROY, SANJOY K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2017 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):
mail@krameramado.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT A. MANN
Appeal 2016-008084
Application 13/892,6721
Technology Center 2400
Before IRVIN E. BRANCH, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-008084
Application 13/892,672
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method performed by a Diameter Routing Agent (DRA)
for processing a Diameter message, the method comprising:
receiving a Diameter message at the DRA from an origin
device;
locating, based on an instruction to perform load
balancing, an applicable load balancing pool of a plurality of load
balancing pools for the Diameter message;
identifying a pool host from the applicable load balancing
pool to receive the Diameter message;
modifying a destination address of the Diameter message
to include an address of the identified pool host; and
transmitting the Diameter message based on the modified
destination address.
Relerences and Rejections
1. Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yigang (US 2010/0299451 Al,
Nov. 25, 2010). Final Act. 5-8.
2. Claims 2, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yigang and Jorgenson (US 6,813,635 Bl, Nov. 2, 2004).
Final Act. 9—10.
3. Claims 3,4, 11, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yigang and Collins (US 2005/0071455 Al,
Mar. 31, 2005). Final Act. 10-16.
2
Appeal 2016-008084
Application 13/892,672
4. Claims 6 and 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yigang and Balyan (US 2009/0080440 Al, Mar. 26,
2009). Final Act. 16-17.
5. Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yigang and Craig (US 2011/0202676 Al, Aug. 18, 2011).
Final Act. 18—19.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “locating, based on an instruction to perform load
balancing, an applicable load balancing pool of a plurality of load balancing
pools for the Diameter message.” The Examiner finds Yigang’s “clusters]
work[] as the load balancing pool[s].” Final Act. 6. The Examiner notes
that Yigang teaches that “the network includes one or more diameter server
clusters working as load balancing pools, and the router selects one of the
cluster, cluster 30 as the destination pool that the server 31 belongs to.”
Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues2 “Yigang fails to locate an applicable load
balancing pool based upon the instruction to perform load balancing.”
App. Br. 7. Appellant alleges the Examiner “neglects to explain how an
applicable load balancing pool is located out of a plurality of load balancing
pools.” App. Br. 7. According to Appellant, while Yigang determines
which server to choose in a particular cluster, Yigang fails to disclose
selecting a cluster from a plurality of clusters. See App. Br. 7—8.
2 Appellant presents additional arguments in their Appeal Brief. However,
because the identified argument is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach
the merits of these additional arguments.
3
Appeal 2016-008084
Application 13/892,672
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Claim 1 requires
“locating ... an applicable load balancing pool of a plurality of load
balancing pools.” Claim 1 also requires “identifying a pool host from the
applicable load balancing pool.” Thus, claim 1 requires both selecting a
pool from a plurality of load balancing pools and then selecting a host in the
selected load balancing pool. The Examiner maps Yigang’s clusters to the
claimed load balancing pools and Yigang’s Diameter servers to the claimed
pool hosts. Yigang discloses “[t]he network 2 further includes one or more
Diameter server clusters 30, wherein the illustrated server cluster includes
three exemplary Diameter servers (hosts) 31, 32, and 33.” Yigang 121.
Yigang further discloses “the router 20 performs load balancing with respect
to the servers 31-33 of the cluster 30 through se[le]ction of the server that
will handle a given session, where the router 20 can select from any number
of available and suitable equipped Diameter servers . . . .” Yigang 124.
Based on Yigang’s disclosure, we agree with the Examiner that Yigang
teaches selecting a server out of a plurality of servers in a given cluster. But
Yigang does not explicitly disclose selecting a cluster out of a plurality of
clusters. In fact, although Yigang mentions that the network can include one
or more server clusters (Yigang 121), Yigang’s further description appears
to relate only to the case where there is a single cluster. Thus, we do not
discern where Yigang describes selecting a particular cluster from a plurality
of clusters, nor has the Examiner cited to any portion of Yigang disclosing
such selection.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 9 and 16, which contain similar limitations and were rejected based
4
Appeal 2016-008084
Application 13/892,672
on similar findings. See Final Act. 5—7. Dependent claims 5, 8, 13, 19, and
20 stand with their independent claims. The Examiner rejected dependent
claims 2—4, 6, 7, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 over additional prior art, but did
not rely on this additional art to teach the disputed limitation. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7,
10-12, 14, 15, 17, and 18.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5