Ex Parte Pak

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2017

13925358 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 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.
BPCUR0029DF (1-94) 2958
EXAMINER
CHENG, CHI TANG P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/925,358 06/24/2013
06/19/201727939 7590
Philip H. Burrus, IV
Burrus Intellectual Property Law Group LLC
222 12th Street NE
Suite 1803
Atlanta, GA 30309
Dong W. Pak
06/19/2017 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 DONG W. PAK1
Appeal 2017-004513
Application 13/925,358
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Concurrent Computer Corporation as the real party
interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2017-004513
Application 13/925,358
INVENTION
The invention is directed to data transfer systems. Spec. 12. Claim 1
is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method of transferring data, comprising:
initiating transfer of the data from a data communication
circuit;
establishing, with a control circuit at the data
communication circuit only, a sliding window spanning a
predetermined subset amount of data, the predetermined subset
of data defined as a function of time;
buffering data, in a memory circuit, the predetermined
subset amount of data;
deleting, from the memory circuit, data outside the
sliding window;
receiving, with the data communication circuit, at least
one error message in response to the initiating, the at least one
error message identifying particular data encountering errors in
transmission;
determining, with the control circuit, whether the
particular data is within the sliding window; and
where the particular data is within the sliding window,
retransmitting, with the data communication circuit, the
particular data.
REFERENCES
Padmanaban et al. US 2005/0198028 A1 Sept. 8, 2005
Cox US 2014/0157307 Al June 5, 2014
Gubbi et al. US 6,574,668 B1 June 3, 2003
Six et al. US 2007/0067804 Al Mar. 22, 2007
2
Appeal 2017-004513
Application 13/925,358
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Padmanaban and Cox. Final Act. 6.
Claims 2—\ and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Padmanaban, Cox, and Gubbi. Final Act. 13.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Padmanaban, Cox, and Six.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Padmanaban
and Cox teaches or suggests “establishing, with a control circuit at the data
communication circuit only, a sliding window spanning a predetermined
subset amount of data, the predetermined subset of data defined as a
function of time” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added)?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded that Appellant
identifies reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the
pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references.
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from
which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer. We provide the
2 The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 6, 8, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2017-004513
Application 13/925,358
following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis.
’s arguments in the principal Brief, we decide the
appeal of all claims rejected on the basis of independent claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(1)(iv). To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for the remaining claims on appeal, such arguments
are considered waived. See id.
“A sliding window spanning a predetermined subset amount of data ”
Appellant argues that Padmanaban “teaches a storage limitation in a
transmission device that is a function of a size of its transmitting buffer, not
as a function of timed thus, Padmanaban fails to teach defining a sliding
window as a function of time, App, Br, 19—20; Reply Br. 8—9.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection because
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claim 1 requires “a sliding window spanning a predetermined subset
amount of dataf not “a sliding window defined as a function of timed The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that Padmanaban’s retransmission queue,
comprising the “data frames between L_V(N)peer and L_V(S),” wherein
“[e]ach data frame is identified by a sequence number, and transmission and
reception of data frames is tracked by pointers to queues maintained in the
RLP transmitter and receiver” (i.e., the data is predetermined), and the
“queues are conceptually configured as circular buffers” and the “transmitter
advances L_V(S) as it transmits data frames to the receiver” (i.e., the
window spans a subset of data), teaches the claimed sliding window that
4
Appeal 2017-004513
Application 13/925,358
spans a predetermined subset amount of data. Final Act. 7 (citing
Padmanaban || 25, 31).
“The predetermined subset of data defined as a function of time ”
Appellant contends Padmanaban does not teach “a data amount that is
‘a function of time.’” Reply Br. 7.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Padmanaban teaches
“a circumstance that would lead to ‘buffer overflow,’ i.e., when the data rate
is high,” and this high data rate teaches “a relatively large volume of data is
transferred over a given unit of time.” Ans. 4 (citing App. Br. 19—20 (citing
Padmanaban || 6—7)). The Examiner’s findings regarding Cox, specifically
that a “receiver continuously buffers the broadcast or streamed content as it
is received, which allows playing the content with a slight delay” (Final Act.
8 (citing Cox 17)), are cumulative to Padmanaban’s teaching that data is
defined as a function of time.
As such, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “establishing ... a
sliding window spanning a predetermined subset amount of data, the
predetermined subset of data defined as a function of time,” as recited in
claim 1, encompasses the combination of Padmanaban’s circular buffer
retransmission queue spanning data frames (i.e., a sliding window spanning
predetermined subset of data) and Cox’s buffering that is applied to real­
time data (i.e., data that is defined as a function of time). Ans. 3; Final Act.
7-8.
“Establishing, with a control circuit at the data communication
circuit only, a sliding window ”
Appellant further contends Padmanaban “fails to teach any sliding
window defined only at the transmitter.” App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 9—10. We
5
Appeal 2017-004513
Application 13/925,358
note that claim 1 recites “establishing, with a control circuit at the data
communication circuit only, a sliding window.” The claim does not require
the sliding window being defined or existing only at the transmitter, but
rather merely that the sliding window is established at the transmitter only,
and thus Appellant’s contention is not commensurate with the scope of the
claim.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Padmanaban teaches the
establishment of an RLP transmitter queue (i.e., a sliding window) at the
data communication circuit in Paragraphs 25—39. Final Act. 7. Padmanaban
further discloses the “RLP node 60 maintains a retransmission buffer 66
storing copies of transmitted data frames awaiting acknowledgement from
the peer RLP 70,” and RLP node 60 is established only at the transmitter.
Id. 123, Fig. 3. Thus, we agree that the claimed “establishing, with a
control circuit at the data communication circuit only, a sliding window”
encompasses Padmanaban’s maintaining of a retransmission buffer at only
the transmitting RLP node 60.
For the above reasons we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6