Ex Parte Venkata Subramanian et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201713443912 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/443,912 04/11/2012 Ramakrishnan VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN KRAUP198WOUSA 7121 18052 7590 12/26/2017 Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC Rosetta Center 629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000 Cleveland, OH 44114 EXAMINER TSEGAYE, SABA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/26/2017 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): docketing @ eschweilerlaw. com inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAMAKRISHNAN VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN, DEEPAK GEORGE, and GULAM MOHAMED Appeal 2017-005929 Application 13/443,9121 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Lantiq Beteiligungs-GMBH &Co. KG. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-005929 Application 13/443,912 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants have filed a Request for Rehearing concerning the Decision on Appeal (“Decision”) mailed October 2, 2017, which affirmed the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3—7 and 11. The Request for Rehearing concerns all pending claims, including independent claim 3 drawn to a data switch “particularly suitable for use in Ethernet voice communication devices.” Req. Reh’g 2; Spec. 1; App. Br. 6 (Claims App’x). The Examiner rejected claims 3,4, and 11 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Asano et al. (“Asano”), and rejected claims 5—7 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Asano and Kramer et al. Final Act. 2—5; Decision 2—3. Appellants argue all claims as a group and, accordingly, we decide the Request for Rehearing based on representative claim 3. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Board’s Decision overlooked or misapprehended their argument that Asano fails to disclose a “control unit being arranged, upon receiving a data packet from any of the second ingress/egress ports having a MAC destination address which is not stored in the table, to control the switching fabric to transmit the data packet to the first ingress/egress port,” as recited in independent claim 3. Req. Reh’g 2 (emphasis added). Specifically, Appellants contend the Board misapprehended Asano’s disclosures (or lack thereof) relating to “microprocessor system 50.” Id. at 2-4. Appellants contend that contrary to the Board’s finding, Asano’s microprocessor system 50 does not cause a packet to be transmitted to the first ingress/egress port (port 4 of Asano Fig. 2 Appeal 2017-005929 Application 13/443,912 3) when the MAC destination address of the packet is unknown/unmatched. Id. Rather, Appellants contend, Asano only discloses microprocessor system 50 “handling” said data packet, not specifying whether or where it is transmitted. Id. We disagree, and we are not persuaded the Board’s Decision overlooked or misapprehended this point. As Appellants acknowledge, Asano describes the role of microprocessor system 50 (control unit) beginning at column 7, line 32. Req. Reh’g 3. That passage states, “[pjackets to be transferred from the LAN [second ingress/egress ports] to the WAN [first ingress/egress port] ... all need[] routing by the microprocessor system 50.” Asano col. 7,11. 32—35 (emphasis added). The very next paragraph continues, “yfurther, when a packet inputted via the [second ingress/egress ports] has a destination MAC address which does not correspond to any of the broadcast address, the CPU_MAC_ADR and the addresses registered in the LAN table area [i.e., the MAC destination address is not stored in any table], the packet is transferred to the port #5 so as to be handled by the microprocessor system 50 as a data packet having an unidentified destination.” Id. at col. 7, 11. 42-47 (emphasis added).2 Appellants argue that Asano’s disclosure of “handling]” such data packets does not mean they are transmitted to the WAN (i.e., the first ingress/egress port). Req. Reh’g 3. The word “further” (Asano col. 7,1. 42), however, indicates that this “handling” is for the purpose of the immediately preceding passage, i.e., transferring packets from the LAN to the WAN 2 The Decision at one point refers to “col. 5” rather than “col. 7” which, as the Request for Rehearing appears to acknowledge, was a typographical error. Decision 5; Req. Reh’g 3. 3 Appeal 2017-005929 Application 13/443,912 (Asano col. 7,11. 32—35). In particular, given the context of Asano col. 7,11. 32—47, and as we found in the Decision, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Asano’s disclosure of “handl[ing]” and “routing” data packets (having an unidentified MAC destination address) as including the transmission of said packets to the WAN (first ingress/egress port). Id.; Decision 5. Appellants alternatively argue that Asano does not disclose all packets having an unidentified MAC destination address are transmitted solely to the first ingress/egress port (the WAN port #4 in Asano), i.e., that this occurs “every time” in the control unit recited in claim 3. Req. Reh’g 3. This argument, however, also is unpersuasive because claim 3 lacks any such requirement. App. Br. 6. Consequently, we are not persuaded the Board’s Decision overlooked or misapprehended any point identified by Appellants. DECISION Appellants’ Request for Rehearing is granted to the extent that the Decision has been reconsidered in light of the arguments made in the Request for Rehearing, but is denied in all other respects. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(b). REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation