Ex Parte Twiss

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2014

10544277 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2014)

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.
10/544,277 12/23/2005 Adam Twiss ALC 3520 1316
76614 7590
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
MAI, KEVIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2014 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
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM TWISS
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to
methods and apparatus for traffic management in peer-to-peer networks.
The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM2.
1 The real party in interest is Alcatel-Lucent.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to routing and caching systems for reducing the
bandwidth used by decentralized peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks.
(See WO 2004/073281, abstract).
Claims 75-89, 92-105, 108, 110-115, 117-123, and 126 are on appeal.
Claims 75, 92, and 110 are independent. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 75, which is reproduced
below with disputed limitations italicized:
75. A method of reducing traffic in a decentralized peer-to-
peer network, said peer-to-peer network operating over an
underlying network comprising first and
second network portions, the method comprising:
identifying, with an Internet Service Provider (ISP)
router, whether messages in the first network portion are peer-
to-peer messages or other messages;
routing all peer-to-peer messages in the first network
portion with an intended destination in the second network
portion outside of a network of an Internet Service Provider
(ISP) to a gateway between peer-to-peer nodes residing on said
first and second network portions', and
controlling transport of said peer-to-peer messages at
said gateway to limit propagation of said peer-to-peer messages
into said second network portion, without limiting propagation
of the other messages into the second network portion.
To reject the claims on appeal, the Examiner relies upon:
Bowman US 2003/0208621 A1 Filed May 6,2002
Teodosiu US 2002/0062375 A1 Pub. May 23,2002
refer to the Final Rejection (mailed May 24, 2010), the Appeal Brief (filed
Sept. 1, 2010), the Answer (mailed Dec. 12, 2010), and the Reply Brief
(filed Jan. 31,2011).
2
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
Scott US 2002/0049760 A1 Pub. Apr. 25, 2002
US 2004/0088646 A1 Filed Oct. 31, 2002
US 2004/0148434 A1 Filed Jan. 24, 2003
Yeager
Matsubara
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 75-80, 87, 92-97, 108, 110-113, 123, and 126 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bowman. (Ans. 3-13).
2. Claims 81, 83, 86, 98, 100, 103, 114, 117, and 120 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bowman and Teodosiu.
(Ans. 14-20).
3. Claims 82, 99, and 115 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bowman and Matsubara. (Ans. 20-22).
4. Claims 84, 101, and 118 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bowman, Teodosiu, and Scott. (Ans. 22-23).
5. Claims 85, 102, and 119 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bowman, Teodosiu, and Matsubara. (Ans. 23-24).
6. Claims 88, 89, 104, 105, 121 and 122 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Bowman and Yeager. (Ans. 25-28).
3 Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
3
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 75, 92, AND 110
Issues and Analysis
We disagree with Appellant’s contention that Bowman does not teach
or suggest “controlling transport of said peer-to-peer messages at said
gateway to limit propagation of said peer-to-peer messages into said second
network portion, without limiting propagation of the other messages into the
second network portion,” as recited in Claim 75. Appellant contends that
similar subject matter is recited in Claims 92 and 110. App. Br. 9-10.
Appellant argues the Office Action (| 4) “correctly concedes that ‘Bowman
does not explicitly disclose’ this subject matter,” (App. Br. 10) but that in
the following paragraph, the Office Action contradicts itself by alleging that
Bowman would render this subject matter obvious, relying upon Bowman
itself for subject matter previously admitted to be absent from Bowman.
Appellant submits the Examiner has adopted a logically inconsistent
position.
The Examiner finds that Bowman teaches controlling transport of
peer-to-peer messages at a gateway to limit propagation of the peer-to-peer
messages into a second network portion, but that Bowman does not
explicitly disclose without limiting propagation of the other messages into
the second network portion. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that “limiting
propagation” {Id.) is not taught explicitly, but that such teaching is implicit.
Bowman 10053 teaches that a router, e.g. distribution router 24 sends only
P2P (peer-to-peer) communications to a PPO (peer-to-peer path optimizer).
Thus, although it is not explicitly stated that other messages are not limited,
because the PPO only acts upon P2P communications it would be obvious
that the other messages would not be limited. Ans. 5.
4
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
We agree with the Examiner’s position that “without limiting
propagation of other messages” (Ans. 4) is implicitly taught by Bowman.
Bowman discloses that data other than P2P messages is propagated through
the network, for example the website data exchanged between networks 12a,
12b, 12n, etc. Bowman 10035. However, only the P2P traffic is directed to
PPO 10, through context sensitive scanning, not other data (i.e., messages).
Bowman 10053. Therefore, we agree that Bowman teaches limiting
propagation of the peer-to-peer messages, without limiting propagation of
the other messages.
Appellant also contends that Bowman does not teach “identifying,
with an ISP router, whether messages in the first network portion are P2P
messages or other messages.” App. Br. 10. Appellant argues Bowman does
not actually identify whether a message is P2P or other, but rather that
Bowman sends “only P2P” messages. The Examiner cites Bowman 10053,
arguing that if only P2P are sent to PPO 10 by the router 24, then the router
must inherently determine whether a message is P2P or other message. Ans.
30. We agree with the Examiner’s finding, again on the principle that
Bowman sends messages other than P2P messages (i.e., website data)
between networks 12a, 12b, 12n, etc., while only P2P messages are sent to
PPO 10. Thus, Bowman teaches identifying “whether messages in the first
network portion are [P2P] messages or other messages.” (Ans. 7).
Appellant also contends that Bowman does not teach “routing all
[P2P] messages in the first network portion with an intended destination in
the second network portion outside of a network of an Internet Service
Provider (ISP) to a gateway between peer-to-peer nodes residing on said first
5
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
and second network portions.” App. Br. 11. Appellant argues that the
Examiner fails to identify the “gateway.”
The Examiner finds that Bowman (| 0053) teaches that distribution
router 24 sends only P2P communications to a PPO. The Examiner finds
that Bowman (Figure 1) teaches the PPO to act as a gateway between the
various network portions that receives P2P messages and is between the two
network portions. Ans. 33.
Appellant replies that Bowman does not teach an ISP router and a
gateway. Reply Br. 4. However, Appellant has not provided evidence that
the claimed gateway and router are distinct, and that it is improper to
consider Bowman’s teaching of the ISP router 24, the core router 26 and the
PPO 10, combined, as the “gateway” of the network. Claims 75, 92 and 110
do not preclude such an interpretation of “gateway.”4 Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner’s contention that Bowman teaches “routing all [P2P]
messages in the first network portion with an intended destination in the
second network portion outside of a network of an Internet Service Provider
(ISP) to a gateway between peer- to-peer nodes residing on said first and
4 Gateway. A functional unit that interconnects a local area network (LAN)
with another network having different higher layer protocols. (LM/C) 8802-
6-1994 (2) (A) A dedicated computer that attaches to two or more networks
and that routes packets from one to the other. (B) In networking, a device
that connects two systems that use different protocols.
IEEE 100 The Seventh Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms
Seventh Edition 477 (2000); doi: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2000.322230;
(httn://ieeexnlore.ieee.org/servlet/onac?nunumber=4116785). We see no
reason that a “dedicated computer” gateway cannot comprise a plurality of
router functions, such as Bowman’s ISP router 24 and core router 26 and
also comprise an optimizer function such as Bowman’s PPO 10.
6
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
second network portions.” (Ans. 4).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of Claims 75, 92, and 110.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 78, 95, AND 111
Issues and Analysis
We disagree with Appellant’s contention that Bowman does not teach
“blocking said peer-to-peer messages at said gateway,” as recited by Claims
78, 95 and 111. App. Br. 11-12. The Examiner cited Bowman | [0040],
specifically that P2P messages that are not needed are dropped. Final Rej. 5.
Appellant contends that “dropping” is not the same as the recited “blocking”
step, as there is no indication the dropping occurs because message was
identified as P2P message. Further, Appellant contends that Bowman does
not use a “gateway” to block messages. Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds that Bowman, || [0037]-[0040], P2P messages
are intercepted and sent or dropped depending on the determined need, in
order to reduce network traffic. Ans. 32. Further, Bowman | [0041] teaches
the P2P traffic is redirected to cost efficient path, thus messages are
“blocked” from some paths. We agree with the Examiner’s position that the
network optimization and message dropping of Bowman is equivalent to
“blocking” P2P messages. Using the interpretation of “gateway” discussed
with regard to Claim 75 above, the message blocking of Bowman occurs at
the “gateway” (i.e., the combination of the ISP router 24, the core router 26
and the PPO 10).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of Claims 78, 95 and 111.
7
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 80, 97, AND 113
Issues and Analysis
We disagree with Appellant’s contention that Bowman does not teach
“responding to said P2P messages from said gateway.” App. Br. 12. Again
using the interpretation of “gateway” discussed with regard to Claim 75
above, the “gateway” of Bowman is the combination of the ISP router 24,
the core router 26 and the PPO 10.
The Examiner noted the PPO (part of the “gateway”) responds to a
P2P message with various query hit or query miss responses. Ans. 33.
Appellant replies that the PPO cannot be the “gateway” because it does not
distinguish P2P and non-P2P messages. Reply Br. 5.
We disagree with Appellant’s contention because Bowman, Figure 10
and 1 [0053], teaches the WCCP 112 of PPO 10 scans packets for P2P
messages and distinguishes P2P and non-P2P messages (i.e., website data, as
discussed with regard to Claim 75 above).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of Claims 80, 97, and 113.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 87
Issues and Analysis
We disagree with Appellant’s contention that Bowman does not teach
“wherein data transport over said third network portion has a cost less than a
cost associated with said second network portion.” App. Br. 13. Appellant
contends that the Examiner broadly pointed to 12b-12n as the “second
network” and has not defined the first network; thus the “third network” was
not defined and it cannot be shown how it is cheaper.
8
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
The Examiner finds that Bowman teaches a network with costs
associated, and any networks 12a, 12b-12n of Figure 3 or 14a-14g of Figure
2 can be selected as the first, second, and third network as long as the cost of
the third network is less than the cost of the second network (e.g., 14f <
14d). Ans. 34. We agree that Bowman teaches a third network (e.g., 14f)
that has a cost less than a cost associated with said second network (e.g.,
14d).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of Claim 87.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 76, 77, 79, 93, 94, 96, 108, 112, 123, AND 126
Issues and Analysis
Dependent claims 76, 77, 79, 93, 94, 96, 108, 112, 123, and 126 are
not argued separately. App. Br. 14. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
Claims 76, 77, 79, 93, 94, 96, 108, 112, 123, and 126 for the same reasons as
those set forth above.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 81, 98, AND 114
Issue and Analysis
We disagree with Appellant’s contention that Teodosiu does not teach
“sending a response to said queries comprising cached data derived from
previous responses to the queries.” App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 6. Appellant
submits that Teodosiu creates an “internal resource record” that indicates
whether a master publisher is logged into a network and whether a resource
still exists, which is not the same as cached data derived from previous
responses.
9
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
The Examiner finds Bowman generally teaches using a cache server
to store frequently used data, such as popular websites. Final Rej. 14, 21.
The Examiner further finds Teodosiu 1 [0050] discloses a server that creates
a record for the resource, including the location of the publisher, and caches
the record so that subsequent requests for the resource can be satisfied
without communicating again with the publisher. Ans. 36. We agree with
the Examiner that this cached record of Teodosiu is analogous to sending a
response to a query (i.e., subsequent request) that comprises cached data
(cached record) derived from previous responses to the queries.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of Claims 81, 98, and 114.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 83, 100, AND 117
Issue and Analysis
We disagree with Appellant’s contention that Teodosiu does not teach
“modifying a response to a previous file search request such that said
response does not indicate that a requested file may be found in said second
network portion.” App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 7. Appellant contends Teodosiu
does not modify a previous response, because Teodosiu 1 [0039] states that
“gate server 120 may simply respond with the location(s) and allow the
client service to directly access the resource on its own.” App. Br. 16.
The Examiner finds Teodosiu 1 [0039] teaches the gate server 120
may take any number of actions when the client device is not compatible,
such as accessing the resource on behalf of the client device and responding
as if the gate server were the resource. Ans. 37. Thus, the response is
modified from being from the peer node to being from the gateway, and
does not indicate that the file may be found in the second network portion.
10
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
While the gate server may, in some cases, allow the client service to
directly access the resource on its own, Teodosiu also teaches the gate server
may take other actions, including responding as if the gate server were the
resource. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s position that Teodosiu
teaches modifying a response to a previous file search request, such that said
response does not indicate that a requested file may be found in said second
network portion.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of Claims 83, 100, and 117.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 86, 103, AND 120
Issue and Analysis
We disagree with Appellant’s contention that Bowman in view of
Teodosiu does not teach "modifying said response to indicate that said
requested file is obtainable from a peer-to-peer node located on said third
network portion." App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 7-8. Appellant argues that
Bowman does not modify any responses, but rather forwards a query
message if a file has not been located. Forwarding a query message is not the
same as modifying a response.
The Examiner finds that Bowman teaches locating a file on lowest
cost node (i.e., third network) and rewriting routing information; wherein the
PPO can modify messages. Ans. 38. In light of this disclosure of the PPO
modifying a message, we agree with the Examiner’s contention that
Bowman teaches “modifying said response to indicate that said requested
file is obtainable from a peer-to-peer node located on said third network
portion.”
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of Claims 86, 103, and 120.
11
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 82, 99, AND 115
Issue and Analysis
We disagree with Appellant’s contention that the combination of
Matsubara and Bowman would be inoperable because Matsubara teaches the
use of HTTP-P2P messages, thus teaching away from P2P protocol
messages. App. Br. 18. Matsubara teaches that an HTTP-based
embodiment is but one of several methods for accessing P2P networks from
nodes that transmit messages that conform to protocols other than that used
on the P2P network. See Matsubara, 10025.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of Claims 82, 99, and 115.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 84, 101, AND 118
Issue and Analysis
Appellant contends that Scott fails to remedy the deficiencies of
Bowman as discussed above for independent Claims 75, 92, and 110. App.
Br. 20.
The Examiner relies on his analysis of Bowman as discussed above.
Ans. 41.
As discussed above, because we find that Bowman teaches the
“gateway,” we sustain the rejection of Claims 84, 101, and 118.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 85, 102, AND 119
Issue and Analysis
Appellant contends that the combination of Matsubara and Bowman
would be inoperable because Matsubara teaches the use of HTTP-P2P
messages, thus teaching away from P2P protocol messages. App. Br. 21.
12
Appeal 2011-006815
Application 10/544,277
This is the same contention as was made with regard to Claims 82, 99, and
115.
As discussed above, because we find that Matsubara does not teach
away from P2P messages and the combination of Matsubara and Bowman
is, in fact, viable, we sustain the rejection of Claims 85, 102, and 119.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 88, 89, 104, 105, 121, AND 122
Issue and Analysis
Appellant contends, inter alia, that Yeager fails to remedy the
deficiencies of Bowman as discussed above for independent Claims 75, 92,
and 110. App. Br. 23.
The Examiner relies on his analysis of Bowman as discussed above.
Ans. 43.
As discussed above, because we find that Bowman teaches the
“gateway,” we sustain the rejection of Claims 88, 89, 104, 105, 121, and
122.
ORDER
The rejection of Claims 75-89, 92-105, 108, 110-115, 117-123, and
126 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED
tkl
13