Ex Parte Namjoshi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2017

13296464 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 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.
13/296,464 11/15/2011 Kedar Namjoshi ALC 31008 4838
76614 7590 03/13/2017
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
CHEEMA, AZAM M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2017 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 KEDAR NAMJOSHI, PRAMOD KOPPOL, ATHANASIOS
STATHOPOULOS, and GORDON T. WILFONG
Appeal 2016-007427
Application 13/296,4641
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, HUNG H. BUI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—23, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel-Lucent USA
Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed November 23, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed June 26, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed June 29, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed June 19,
2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed November 15, 2011
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-007427
Application 13/296,464
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “a method and apparatus of providing
a backup-in-the-middle primary-backup configuration [shown in Figure 1]
that improves network performance . . . [and] decreases the synchronization
delay.” Spec. 2:1—6; see also id., 4:23—5:10.
Appellants’ Figure 1 is reproduced below:
_____________________________________________ _______________
msgsj f. . . .. . . . . / . . . . . . w
msg$j |
PRIMARY 1I0$~i^ BACKUP UGrrH1 | ENV
110 msgsf-M 120 I 130
msgs|41 |
J
As shown in Figure 1, backup-in-the-middle forwarder 120 is placed
in a routing path between primary 110 (i.e., a source node) and environment
130 (i.e., a destination node) to perform several recited functions, including
(1) capturing state information 110s_i, 110s_2 sent from primary 110 along
with messages 110m_i, 110m_2, (2) synchronizing its operation state with
primary 110, and then (3) transmitting forwarded messages 110m_i, 110m_2
that correspond to input messages 110s-i, 110S_2 to environment 130 (i.e.,
destination node). Spec. 5:16—6:21. As a result, synchronization delay
between primary 110 and backup 120 can be eliminated because primary
110 does not need to wait for an acknowledgement from backup 120 before
transmitting input message 110m_i and 110m_2. Spec. 5:2—7, 6:21—25.
2
Appeal 2016-007427
Application 13/296,464
Claims 1,6, 16, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellants’ invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics'.
1. A method for providing primary backup services,
comprising:
at a processor communicatively coupled to a digital data
storage, receiving an input message directed to an intended
recipient from a primary',
receiving, by the processor in cooperation with the digital
data storage, state information from the primary;
synchronizing, by the processor in cooperation with the
digital data storage, a stored primary state based on the state
information; and
transmitting, by the processor in cooperation with the
digital data storage, a forwarded message to the intended
recipient, the forwarded message corresponding to the input
message.
App. Br. 17 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejection and References
(1) Claims 1—11 and 15—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Liskov (US 7,158,985 Bl; issued on Jan. 2,
2007) and Shimizu et al. (US 2011/0090785 Al; published Apr. 21, 2011;
“Shimizu”). Final Act. 2—7.
(2) Claims 12—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Liskov, Shimizu, and IEEE 802.11 Wikipedia.org; archive
Aug. 31, 2010; “IEEE 802.11”). Final Act. 7-8.
(3) Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Liskov, Shimizu, and Spiro et al. (US 5,369,757; issued
Nov. 29, 1994). Final Act. 8.
3
Appeal 2016-007427
Application 13/296,464
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the prior art teaches or suggests (1) “receiving an input message
directed to an intended recipient from a primary” and (2) “transmitting ... a
forwarded message to the intended recipient, the forwarded message
corresponding to the input message” as recited in claim 1, and similarly
recited in claims 6, 16, and 17. App. Br. 8—15.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites a method for providing primary-backup
services that comprises several steps at a processor communicatively
coupled to a digital data storage including receiving both [la] “an input
message directed to an intended recipient from a primary,” and [lb] “state
information from the primary,” and then [2] “synchronizing ... a stored
primary state based on the state information” and [3] “transmitting ... a
forwarded message to the intended recipient, the forwarded message
corresponding to the input message.” Claims 6, 16, and 17 recite similar
limitations.
In support of the rejection of claims 1,6, 16, and 17, the Examiner
finds Liskov teaches Appellants’ claimed “method for providing primary-
backup services” provided with all the steps (Final Act. 2—3) (citing
Liskov 2:63—3:45, 7:15—37), but acknowledges Liskov “may not adequately
show forwarding base traffic to and from an ‘intended recipient’” {id. at 3).
The Examiner further finds that paragraphs 9, 17, 19 of Shimizu teach
“computing nodes specifically tasked for the purpose of routing and
rerouting traffic.” Id. at 3^4. The Examiner reasons that “[i]t would have
4
Appeal 2016-007427
Application 13/296,464
been obvious ... to combine the network failover system of Liskov with the
node based relay and routing implementation of Shimizu in order to find and
route traffic to available servers.” Id. at 4.
For example, the Examiner finds Liskov teaches
[la] Appellants’ claimed “receiving an input message directed
to an environment [sic, intended recipient] from a primary” in
the form of a synchronization message being sent from a master
computing “environment” to a backup computing “environment”
as disclosed by Liskov;
[lb] Appellants’ claimed “state information from the primary”
in the form of “dataset name and event number” as disclosed by
Liskov;
[2] Appellants’ claimed “synchronizing ... a stored primary
state based on the state information” in the form of “propagation
of change logs [] used to update subordinate nodes” as disclosed
by Liskov; and
[3] Appellants’ claimed “transmitting ... a forwarded
message to the environment [sic, intended recipient], the
forwarded message corresponding to the input message” in the
form of “status information [] sent regarding the state of the new
master” as disclosed by Liskov.
Final Act. 2—3 (citing Liskov 7:15—37).
Appellants contend neither Liskov nor Shimizu teaches or suggests
(1) “receiving an input message directed to an intended recipient from a
primary” and (2) “transmitting [] a forwarded message to the intended
recipient, the forwarded message corresponding to the input message” as
recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 6, 16, and 17. App. Br. 8—
15. In particular, Appellants assert
5
Appeal 2016-007427
Application 13/296,464
the claim requires the backup to receive an input message from
the primary that is not directed to itself (e.g., the backup), but
rather directed to an intended recipient (e.g., a node in
environment 130). The claim then requires the backup to
forwarded [sic] that message to the intended recipient once it’s
[sic, its] backup processing is done (e.g., the synchronization
steps discussed below).
Id. at 8—9. Appellants then argue “the portions of Liskov cited by the
Examiner appear to describe a system where an incoming master (e.g.,
primary) propagates changes to the subordinate nodes” and, as such, do not
teach or suggest any backup node receiving an input message directed to an
intended recipient and forwarding that input message to that intended
recipient. Id. at 9-10.
The Examiner responds that (1) the term “primary-backup services”
has not been accorded any patentable weight because that term is recited in
the preamble, and (2) “[w]hile some level of forwarding is inherent within
the implementation of Liskov, computing nodes specifically tasked for the
purpose of routing and rerouting traffic can be better demonstrated by at
least Shimizu.” Ans. 3^4 (citing Shimizu ^fl[ 9, 17, 19, 35).
ISSUE ON APPEALANALYSIS
We disagree with the Examiner. First, a preamble limits the invention
if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is “necessary to give life,
meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Catalina Marketing International, Inc.
v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). As recognized
by Appellants, the “preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality
to the claims due to the importance of ‘primary-backup services’ in context
of the primary recited in the body of the claims,” i.e., “an input message
6
Appeal 2016-007427
Application 13/296,464
directed to an intended recipient from a primary” and “transmitting [] a
forwarded message to the intended recipient.” As such, the preamble of
claim 1 should be accorded patentable weight. Reply Br. 2. Second,
contrary to the Examiner’s finding that the cited portion of Liskov teaches
the recited steps for providing primary-backup services, this portion instead
discusses propagation of change computations or updates among subordinate
caching servers when a master server fails. For example, Liskov describes
In a system for maintaining a dataset having a master node
storing a master dataset and a plurality of subordinate nodes
having replicated datasets, changes to the dataset are efficiently
propagated through the nodes even when the master node fails
and a backup node takes over as temporary master. Each node
maintains a change log where each change to the dataset is stored
as a numbered event. The numbered events further include name
change records storing a dataset name change. Each time a node
takes over as master, either a root node that is the original master
server or a subordinate node as temporary master server, the
incoming master server changes the name of the dataset. The new
dataset name and old dataset name are recorded into a name
change record, also referred to as a rename record, that the master
server inserts into its change log and propagates along with other
dataset changes to the other nodes. The name change records in
the change log form a chain of linked indicators of dataset
commonality within the change log. The master server, or
temporary master server, uses information from the change log
including the name change record to determine how much of an
update is needed by a requesting node and so efficiently
propagate changes to the dataset.
Liskov 7:15—37 (emphasis added).
Maintaining a dataset between a master node and subordinate nodes,
as disclosed by Liskov, is not and cannot be considered the same as
7
Appeal 2016-007427
Application 13/296,464
Appellants’ claimed “receiving an input message directed to an intended
recipient from a primary” and “transmitting [] a forwarded message to the
intended recipient, the forwarded message corresponding to the input
message,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 6, 16, and 17
Lastly, we note the Examiner has not shown how a skilled artisan
would have modified Liskov’s scheme to maintain a dataset between a
master node and subordinate nodes to incorporate a route switching method
as taught by Shimizu, and the Examiner has not provided any articulation
having a rational underpinning for doing so. Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 3^4.
For the reasons set forth above and in the absence of a teaching or
suggestion of all limitations of claims 1, we decline to sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 6, 16, and 17, or their
respective dependent claims 2—5, 7—15, and 18—23. We do not address
Appellants’ remaining arguments because this issue is dispositive as to all
pending claims on appeal.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—23
REVERSED
8