Ex Parte ROY et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2019

14580671 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/580,671 12/23/2014 Satyajit ROY
133943 7590 02/01/2019
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
37BT-204516 1053
EXAMINER
OVEISSI, MANSOUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2019 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):
docketing@sheppardmullin.com
SheppardMullin_Pair@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SATY AJIT ROY and
HANNY KADRICHU 1
Appeal2018-004892
Application 14/580,671
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant is the Applicant and real party in interest, Hughes Network
Systems, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004892
Application 14/580,671
Invention
The Specification discloses a bandwidth allocation manager that "can
employ smart admission techniques to admit new terminals based upon the
available bandwidth capacities of TDMA [(time division multiple access)]
inroute channels including committed information rate (CIR) bandwidth
requirements of already admitted terminals and current and CIR bandwidth
requirements of the new terminals." Abstract. In particular, the bandwidth
allocation manager "[a]ttempts ... to fully load a first TDMA inroute
channel before providing admission to a second TDMA inroute channel."
Id. This is accomplished by admitting a terminal to "the channel capable of
admitting the terminal and having the least available bandwidth capacity."
Spec. ,r 4.
Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method, comprising:
determining available bandwidth capacity of each channel in a
network;
determining bandwidth requirements of a terminal seeking
admission to the network;
determining all channels in the network that are capable of
admitting the terminal based on their respective bandwidth
capacity and the bandwidth requirements of the terminal;
selecting the channel capable of admitting the terminal and
having the least available bandwidth capacity; and
admitting the terminal to the selected channel.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Agarwal (WO 2010/054394 A2; published May 14, 2010)
2
Appeal2018-004892
Application 14/580,671
and Singh et al. (US 2008/0240146 Al; published Oct. 2, 2008) ("Singh").
Final Act. 5-12.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is directed to a method that, as part of the process for
admitting a terminal, selects "the channel capable of admitting the terminal
and having the least available bandwidth." That is, the method requires
selection-from among all the channels with sufficient available bandwidth
to meet bandwidth requirements of the terminal----of the channel with the
smallest amount of available bandwidth. See Spec. ,r 40, Fig. 2. This serves
to "seek a 'best fit' ... by trying to admit new terminals in such a manner
that ... channels having capacity are filled as close to capacity as possible
before considering admission to another ... channel." Id. ,r 43.
The Examiner initially rejects claim 1 by finding that Agarwal's
dynamic resource allocation in a satellite communication system discloses
most of the claim recitations (see Final Act. 5), but fails to "explicitly teach
selecting the channel capable of admitting the terminal and having the least
available bandwidth capacity" (id. at 6). The Examiner, thus, relies on
Singh's selection of a low rate channel when a device requesting bandwidth
cannot use a high rate channel to render obvious modifying Agarwal to
include this feature. Id. ( citing Singh ,r 7).
Appellant contends, and we agree, that Singh's cited teachings are not
relevant to the disputed recitation. Appeal Br. 14--15. Singh does not select
a channel based on the channel having "the least available bandwidth
capacity." At best, Singh selects a type of channel that has the highest rate
useable by a device requesting bandwidth. Singh ,r 7. This would be a low
rate channel when the device requesting bandwidth is not able to use a high
3
Appeal2018-004892
Application 14/580,671
rate channel, but in that case Singh merely discloses "selecting one of the
low rate channels" to satisfy the request for bandwidth without specifically
selecting the low rate channel with the least available bandwidth capacity.
Id. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in relying on
Singh to teach or suggest "selecting the channel capable of admitting the
terminal and having the least available bandwidth capacity," as recited in
claim 1.
In response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner does not provide
additional findings showing that Singh teaches or suggests this recitation.
Rather, the Examiner determines that "the phrase 'capable of recited in
[the] limitation[] ' ... selecting the channel capable of admitting the
terminal and having the least available bandwidth capacity' [is] not [a]
positively recited claim limitation." Id. at 3 (citing MPEP § 2111.04). That
is, the Examiner interprets the disputed recitation as merely reflecting an
intended use of the selected channel and, thus, not being entitled to
patentable weight.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the "'capable of
[limitation] as used in [ claim 1] is neither an optional nor a contingent
clause." Reply Br. 3 (citing MPEP § 2111.04). Rather, Appellant
persuasively argues, the disputed recitation reflects characteristics of a
channel such that "of those channels having the requisite characteristic, i.e.,
having available bandwidth to support terminal bandwidth requirements, the
channel that has the least available capacity is selected." Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellant that the recited properties of the channel to
select are entitled to patentable weight. The phrase "capable of," as used in
the disputed recitation, is directed to filtering out channels that do not have
4
Appeal2018-004892
Application 14/580,671
sufficient available bandwidth to admit the terminal. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 40
("[ A ]11 channels in a network that are capable of admitting the terminal
based on their respective bandwidth capacities and the bandwidth
requirements of the terminal are determined."). The next part of the
disputed recitation, "having the least available bandwidth capacity," is a
separate characteristic that is also used to determine which channel to select
from among remaining channels-those channels having sufficient capacity
to admit the terminal. See id. ("[T]he channel capable of admitting the
terminal that has the least available bandwidth capacity is selected.").
The Examiner's findings do not show that Agarwal teaches or suggest
using both of these channel characteristics (i.e., identifying the channel with
the least available bandwidth capacity that also has sufficient available
bandwidth capacity to admit the terminal) in making a channel selection.
See Ans. 3---6. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's
findings do not show that Agarwal, either alone or in combination with
Singh, teaches or suggests "selecting the channel capable of admitting the
terminal and having the least available bandwidth capacity," as recited in
claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-25, which recite similar recitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25.
REVERSED
5