Ex Parte Sharma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2014

11700441 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte PUNEET SHARMA, MANISH, JAIN,
and SUJATA BANERJEE
_____________

Appeal 2012-004106
Application 11/700,441
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claim 1 through 20.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a network where service overlay networks
(SON) are used to provide services in response to a user query. The SON is
then used to create a reduced search space of nodes, the reduced search
space created to meet a search space reduction metric. Then an individual
path is formed that satisfies a quality of service constraint. See Abstract and
Appeal 2012-004106
Application 11/700,441

2

paragraph 12 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below:
1. A method of selecting service nodes to be used in
an end-to-end service path in a service overlay network (SON),
the method comprising:
a computer system determining a search space comprised
of service nodes in the SON and determining, from the search
space, a reduced search space of service nodes comprised of a
subset of the service nodes in the search space in the SON that
are operable to provide service components of a requested
service and that satisfy a search space reduction metric;
from the reduced search space of service nodes, selecting
service nodes to form a service path that satisfies all quality of
service (QoS) constraints individually for the service.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4, 9 through 11, 14, 15, 18, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Basu (US
2006/0120411 A1, June 8, 2006) and Iwata (US 2002/0051449 A1, May 2,
2002). Answer 4–8.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 3, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Basu, Iwata and Bauer (US
2006/0271530 A1, Nov. 30, 2006). Answer 8–10.
The Examiner has rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Basu, Iwata, and Hoshino (US 2006/0094468 A1,
May 4, 2006). Answer 10–11.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
October 31, 2011, Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on July 18, 2011, and
Reply Brief dated January 3, 2012.
Appeal 2012-004106
Application 11/700,441

3

The Examiner has rejected claims 5 through 8, 17, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Basu, Iwata, and Reynaud
(US 2003/0233640 A1, Dec. 18, 2003). Answer 11–15.

ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 8 through 11 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 18 is in error. The
dispositive issue presented by these arguments is: did the Examiner err in
finding the combination Basu and Iwata teaches determining a reduced
search space of service nodes that satisfy a search space reduction metric as
recited in independent claims 1, 15, and 18?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We agree with Appellants’
conclusion that Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 20.
Each of the independent claims recites limitations directed to a
reduced search space of service nodes that satisfy a search space reduction
metric. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds Basu
teaches a routing table that is applied to an overlay network which has “a
search space with reduction metric (reduced number of nodes).” Answer 18.
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that this teaching of Basu meets
the claims, as we do not find the cited teachings of Basu teach a metric
which the reduced search space meets. Further, we note the reduction of
nodes is not discussed in the passages of Basu cited by the Examiner.
Appeal 2012-004106
Application 11/700,441

4

Accordingly, we do not consider the Examiner to have shown the
combination of Basu and Iwata teaches all of the limitations of independent
claims 1, 15, and 18. The Examiner has not shown the references to Bauer,
Hoshino, and Reynaud contain a teaching of this disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 1 through 20.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 is
reversed.

REVERSED

msc