Ex Parte Venkata Subramanian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2017

13443912 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
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