Ex Parte Morea et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2017

13390742 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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.
13/390,742 03/12/2012 Annalisa Morea 804775. 3395
47382 7590 12/21/2017
Patti & Malvone Law Group, LLC
One North LaSalle St., 44th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
EXAMINER
SHALABY, MINAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2636
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2017 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):
info @ pattimalvonelg .com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANN ALISA MOREA and FLORENCE LEPLINGARD
Appeal 2016-005275
Application 13/390,7421
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and CARL L.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “the field of optical
communication networks, in particular the field of optical networks, which
are capable of establishing transparent optical connections to transport data
flows.” Abstract.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Alcatel-Lucent.
Appeal 2016-005275
Application 13/390,742
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. Method for dynamically producing a representation
of physical degradations in a network control unit of a
wavelength switched optical network (WSON), said WSON
comprising transparent switching nodes mutually connected by
optical links, said method executed by the node control unit and
comprising the steps of:
associating a pair of counter-directional optical links
between neighboring nodes as a bi-directional link,
providing at least one respective physical degradation
parameter for each of said counter-directional optical links of
said pair,
determining at least one physical degradation parameter
characteristic of said bi-directional link from said physical
degradation parameters of the counter-directional optical links of
said pair,
storing a descriptor of the bi-directional link comprising
said at least one physical degradation parameter characteristic of
said bi-directional link in said node control unit; and
determining said transmission quality of the [bi­
directional] link according to said bi-directional link descriptors.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter. Final Act. 3—4.
Claims 1, 6-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sadananda (US 8,244,127 B2; iss. Aug. 14, 2012) and
Eiselt (US 2004/0175187 Al; pub. Sept. 9, 2004). Final Act. 5-7.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sadananda, Eiselt, and Tanaka (US 2003/0174389 Al; pub. Sept. 18,
2003). Final Act. 7-8.
2
Appeal 2016-005275
Application 13/390,742
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sadananda, Eiselt, and Boroditsky (US 2011/0129215 Al; pub. June 2,
2011). Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sadananda, Eiselt, and McNamara (US 6,545,799 Bl; iss. April 8,
2003). Final Act. 9.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sadananda, Eiselt, Imajuku (US 2003/0147645 Al; pub. Aug. 7, 2003)
and Penninckx (US 2005/0175340 Al; pub. Aug. 11, 2005). Final Act. 10-
11.
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
Claims 16
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter.
The Examiner determines that “Claims 1-6 are directed to the abstract
idea of ‘collective descriptor of multiple values’.” Final Act. 4. The
Examiner further explains
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient
to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because the control unit as recited is a generic computer
component that performs functions (i.e., calculating the average;
determining the maximum or the minimum of two numbers;
calculating the square root of a number; storing descriptor
number in database; and determine another number from the
descriptor number). These are generic computer functions that
3
Appeal 2016-005275
Application 13/390,742
are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
previously known to the industry.
Final Act. 4.
Appellants, on the other hand, assert that claims 1-6 are not directed
to an abstract idea and, even if claim 1 was directed to an abstract idea, the
claim includes significantly more than the judicial exception. App. Br. 7-8.
More specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner’s determination that the
claim is directed to a “collective descriptor of multiple values” is a gross
distortion and does not comport with the 2014 Interim Guidance. App. Br.
7. Appellants explain
that claim 1, reciting a method of operating a node control unit
in a wavelength switched optical network (WSON), is clearly
does [sic] not include an abstract idea. It is not a fundamental
economic practice, nor would interacting directly with an optical
link be understood as a typical human activity. The claim steps
also do not recite the general mathematical operations as alleged
by the Examiner. Instead, the claim recites specific actions
performed by hardware elements that do not constitute a
principle, original cause or motive. No mathematical
relationships or formulas are recited.
App. Br. 8.
Additionally, Appellants argue that the claims include significantly
more than the judicial exception. Namely,
one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that a
wavelength switched optical network (WSON) is computer-
implemented system and that any practical implementation of the
method steps is within hardware and software elements of the
computer system. A node control unit is recited in both the
preamble and the storing step of claim 1. The preamble also
recites switching nodes connected by optical links, which are
both well-understood to be computer-implemented devices. All
4
Appeal 2016-005275
Application 13/390,742
of the steps refer to optical links and particularly, to physical
parameters of the optical links.
The claimed method is not merely performing an idea via
a computer, but improves the functioning of an optical network.
Taking the additional claim elements individually, and in
combination, the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more
that the alleged abstract idea.
App. Br. 8.
Following the decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 134
S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1300 (2012)), we analyze claims under the two-part
analysis set forth in Mayo. First, we consider whether the claim is directed
to an abstract idea and, second, if an abstract idea is present in the claim, we
determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is
sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the
abstract idea itself. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350.
We recognize that the steps of claim 1 are performed by a node
control unit, nevertheless, claim 1 is directed to a method for producing a
representation of physical degradation in a network. The steps include
associating links, collecting parameters and characterizations for the links,
storing the characterizations, and analyzing the characterizations to
determine transmission quality. As such, we agree with the Examiner that
character of the claim as a whole is merely data collection (collecting the bi­
directional link values) and data analysis (determining the transmission
quality). This is consistent with the Specification that explains in the
embodiment of Figure 2 that the node control unit comprises a database that
receives information (which may be entered manually) that is stored and
5
Appeal 2016-005275
Application 13/390,742
dynamically updated. Spec. 6,11. 19-21. See also Spec. 6,11. 27-32
(identifying the various types of data that may be used).
As such, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea. See TDEPetroleum Data Solutions, Inc., v. AKMEnter., Inc.,
657 F. App’x 991 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (citing Elec. Power Group,
LLCv. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“claims generally
reciting ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results
of the collection and analysis’ are ‘a familiar class of claims ‘directed to’ a
patent-ineligible concept.’”)); see also Content Extraction & Transmission
LLCv. Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Assn, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
2014).
Appellants’ assertions that the claims include significantly more than
the abstract idea also lack merit. While the claims do include network
components, these are well-known, conventional components. As the
Examiner points out,
[t]he claim also recites a node, a first party device, and a
wavelength switched optical network (WSON), which do not
add meaningful limitations to the idea of “collective descriptor
of multiple values” beyond generally linking the system to a
particular technological environment, that is, implementation in
a network controller.
Final Act. 4; see also Spec. 1. Therefore, we find Appellants’ argument
unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 1, as well as claims 2-6 not argued with particularity, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
6
Appeal 2016-005275
Application 13/390,742
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Sadananda and Eiselt
Claims 1, 6—10, and 15
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 6-10, and 15.
Appellants argue that Sadananda fails to teach or suggest associating a
pair of counter-directional optical links between neighboring nodes as a bi­
directional link. App. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants allege that while
Sadananda teaches bi-directional signal flow on a link, this is insufficient to
teach that the pair of links are “associated, i.e. given a specific identity as, ‘a
bi-directional link’ as claimed.” Id.
We find this argument unpersuasive. Namely, as the Examiner
explains, having an optical flow in both directions at least suggests a bi­
directional link. Ans. 3. Moreover, Sadananda expressly describes bi­
directional label switched paths and explains that “the optical network can
be thought of as consisting of the logical pairing of lightpaths to construct
bi-directional associations between the access nodes....” Sadananda, col. 1,
11. 34-35; col. 2,11. 59-65.
Likewise unavailing is Appellants’ assertion that Sadananda does not
teach or suggest “providing at least one respective physical degradation
parameter for each of said counter-directional optical links of said pair.”
App. Br. 9. The underlying premise of Appellants’ argument here is again
the lack of an associated pair of links. Specifically, Appellants allege that
Sadananda only describes keeping separate attributes for each direction, not
“‘for each of said counter-directional optical links of said pair’ (emphasis
added). The counter-directional optical links of the claims are combined to
provide for pairs of counter-directional optical links.” App. Br. 9-10. As
7
Appeal 2016-005275
Application 13/390,742
the Examiner points out though, nothing in the claim precludes keeping
separate attributes for each optical link of the pair. Ans. 3. Namely, claim 1
merely requires providing at least one respective physical degradation
parameter for each of said counter-directional optical links of said pair.
Thus, we find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive.
Appellants also argue that Sadananda lacks the limitation of “storing a
descriptor of the bi-directional link comprising said at least one physical
degradation parameter characteristic of said bi-directional link in said node
control unit.” App. Br. 10. While Appellants acknowledge that Sadananda
teaches storing attributes, Appellants maintain this “in no way implies that
the attribute relates to the bi-directional link comprising said at least one
physical degradation parameter characteristic of said bi-directional link.” Id.
This argument is unpersuasive because it fails to consider the
teachings of Eiselt. See Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner relies on
Eiselt as teaching “determining at least one physical degradation parameter
characteristic of said bi- directional link from said physical degradation
parameters of the counter-directional optical links of said pair.” Ans. 4.
Appellants then contend that Sadananda fails to teach or suggest
“determining said transmission quality of the [bi-directional] link according
to said bi-directional link descriptors.” More specifically, Appellants state
that Sadananda only provides “a very generic statement of path-based
routing. It falls far short of teaching or suggesting the specific claim
language.” App. Br. 10.
We disagree. Sadananda describes that the quality check module will
determine if certain requirements are met by the set of path-based optical
attributes, i.e. transmission quality. Sadananda, col. 6,1. 67 - col. 7,1. 5; see
also Ans. 4. Appellants’ conclusory assertions are therefore insufficient to
8
Appeal 2016-005275
Application 13/390,742
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Sadananda teaches this
limitation.
Turning to Eiselt, Appellants assert that Eiselt does not disclose
“determining at least one physical degradation parameter characteristic of
said bi-directional link from said physical degradation parameters of the
counter-directional optical links of said pair.” App. Br. 11. According to
Appellants, Eiselt only discloses “compensating ‘for the chromatic
dispersion (i.e., physical degradation parameter characteristic) of [bi­
directional] links 111 and 110, that is the single dispersion compensation
value corresponds to a single dispersion value representing the two counter-
directional links 111 and 110.’” App. Br. 11 (Office Act. 5). Appellants
further distinguish Eiselt because Eiselt describes determining dispersion
compensation parameters as the fiber optic system is installed, not
dynamically generating a physical degradation parameter characteristics “of
said bi-directional link.” App. Br. 11-12.
We find these arguments unavailing. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner that
a single dispersion compensation value to compensate for the
dispersion of optical signals in both directions necessarily means
that the compensation value of the DCM represents the
dispersion amount that needs to be compensated in both
directions (i.e., physical degradation parameter characteristic of
said bi-directional link). Further, Eiselt et al. teaches in
9
Appeal 2016-005275
Application 13/390,742
paragraphs [0058] an [0059] a single descriptor that represents
the dispersion in both directions.
Ans. 5; see also Eiselt 49 (noting that the dispersion management will take
into account the propagation quality for both directions).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 6-
10, and 15 not argued separately with particularity, as unpatentable over
Sadananda and Eiselt.
The Remaining Obviousness Rejections
Claims 2—5 and 11—14
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 2-5 and 11-14. Instead, Appellants allege that the secondary
references do not cure the deficiencies of Sadananda and Eiselt. As
discussed above, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 10 as unpatentable over Sadananda and Eiselt. As such, we
also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2-5 and 11-14.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
10