Juniper Networks, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2020

2019002492 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

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.
14/515,074 10/15/2014 Jonathan Colby Barth JUNI-240/00US
108200-2573
4537
83463 7590 12/02/2020
Cooley LLP / Juniper Networks, Inc.
Attn: IP Docketing Department
c/o Cooley LLP
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
EXAMINER
AUNG, SAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2020 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):
zIPPatentDocketingMailboxUS@cooley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN COLBY BARTH and
SUDHIR CHERUATHUR
Appeal 2019-002492
Application 14/515,074
Technology Center 2400

Before DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–16, 18, and 20–23. Claims 7,
17, and 19 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Juniper Networks,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002492
Application 14/515,074

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to translating
communications between network layers, and, in particular, using a common
abstraction model (CAM) to translate ingoing or outgoing communications
into a format that can be interpreted by the data recipient. Spec. ¶ 1005.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system, comprising:
a network entity at a first layer of a multilayer network, the
network entity at the first layer configured to receive a request
for a network topology from a network entity at a second layer
of a multilayer network;
a processor, operatively coupled to the network entity at
the first layer, and configured to generate a translation protocol
based on common attributes between an abstraction of a first
topology format associated with the first layer and an abstraction
of a second topology format,
the processor configured to retrieve the network topology,
the network topology being represented as a topology map in the
first topology format, the network entity at the first layer of the
multilayer network configured to use the translation protocol to
convert the topology map in the first topology format into a
common abstraction model (CAM) that includes information
relating to the common attributes and specifies links between
network devices independent of a structure of the first layer; and
a multilayer network translation interface implemented by
the processor and configured to convert the CAM into a topology
map in the second topology format using the translation protocol,
the multilayer network translation interface configured to send
the topology map in the second topology format to the network
entity at the second layer such that the network entity at the
second layer determines a path between a first network node and
Appeal 2019-002492
Application 14/515,074

3
a second network node based on the topology map in the second
topology format.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Okamoto US 7,483,446 B2 Jan. 27, 2009
Yadav US 2011/0235635 A1 Sept. 29, 2011
Biegert US 8,433,195 B2 Apr. 30, 2013
Lee US 9,167,309 B2 Oct. 20, 2015
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–6 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Biegert and Okamoto. Final Act. 3–8.
The Examiner rejects claims 8–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Biegert and Lee. Id. at 8–13.
The Examiner rejects claims 14–16, 18, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto, Biegert, and Yadav. Id. at 13–
18.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).

Independent Claims 1, 8, and 14
“a common abstraction model (CAM)”
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Biegert teaches “a
common abstraction model (CAM),” as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claims 8 and 14. Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 2–3; see Appeal
Appeal 2019-002492
Application 14/515,074

4
Br. 13–14. Specifically, Appellant argues none of Biegert’s “optical signals,
electrical signals, and IP/MAC type signals” teach a “common abstraction
model (CAM)” according to either its “ordinary and customary meaning” or
“consistent with the use of the claim term in the [S]pecification.” Appeal
Br. 10–11. Further, Appellant argues the Examiner “uses the phrase ‘CAM
format’” which “ignore[s] the actual claim recitation ‘common abstraction
model (CAM)’ and instead injects a new term ‘format,’” not recited in the
claims. Reply Br. 2–3; Appeal Br. 10.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Biegert’s converted “electrical signal” — converted from optical network
signals and subsequently converted into MAC/IP layer signals—teaches “a
common abstraction model (CAM).” Ans. 4–5 (citing Biegert 28:10–24,
Fig. 7).
Contrary to Appellant arguments (Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 2–3),
Biegert’s converted electrical signal falls within the Specification’s
description of “a common abstraction model (CAM).” The Specification
states that a “CAM can be a network layer-dependent model and/or
representation of network layer data.” Spec. ¶ 1018 (emphasis added). In
Biegert, a “pluggable optical module 132 receives optical signals
representing optical network packets, and converts the optical signals to
electrical signals representing the optical network packets.” Biegert 28:10–
13 (emphasis added). As such, Biegert’s converted electrical signals, which
“represent[] the optical network packets” (id.), fall within the Specification’s
description of a CAM, i.e., a “representation of network layer data” (Spec.
¶ 1018).
Appeal 2019-002492
Application 14/515,074

5
Although the Examiner, at times, discusses the claimed “CAM” in
terms of a “CAM format” (see Final Act. 19–20; Ans. 3–4), the Examiner’s
addition of the term “format” does not change our determination. The
Examiner does not ignore or fail to address the claimed “CAM” by adding
the term “format.” Moreover, the Examiner’s use of the term does not
change the meaning of “CAM,” as set forth in the Specification, or change
that Biegert’s converted “electrical signal” teaches the CAM, as claimed.
Therefore, the Examiner’s use of “CAM format,” in some portions of the
rejection, does not change our determination.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Biegert teaches “a common abstraction model (CAM),” as recited in claim 1
and similarly recited in claims 8 and 14.

“translation protocol,” “network topology,” “topology map”
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Biegert teaches “a
translation protocol” and a “network topology being represented as a
topology map,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8 and 14.
Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2; see Appeal Br. 13–14. Specifically, Appellant
argues the Examiner “impermissibly aggregates these three separate claim
terms such that the single disclosure within Biegert of converting from
optical signals to electrical signals purportedly discloses all three separate
and distinct claim terms,” namely, a “translation protocol,” a “network
topology,” and a “topology map.” Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2. That is,
Appellant asserts that the “Examiner appears to have been ‘double counting’
or even ‘triple counting’ claim terms by a single item with the prior art.”
Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002492
Application 14/515,074

6
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Biegert’s “pluggable optical module 132 [used] to convert/translate the
optical signals/packets” teaches a “translation protocol.” Final Act. 3
(emphasis omitted) (citing Biegert 28:10–15, Fig. 7). The Examiner further
finds Biegert’s “data conversion from the Optical Signals (i.e.[,] first
topology format) to the Electrical Signals” teaches a “network topology
being represented as a topology map in the first topology format.” Id. at 4
(emphasis omitted) (citing Biegert 28:10–24, Figs. 7, 12A).
Appellant does not specifically explain why Biegert fails to teach “a
translation protocol,” a “network topology,” or “a topology map;” instead,
Appellant argues that the Examiner may not rely on Biegert’s conversion
between optical and electrical signals to teach all three features. See Appeal
Br. 11; Reply Br. 2. Although the Examiner appears to rely on Biegert’s
“converting . . . optical signals to electrical signals” to teach “a translation
protocol” and a “network topology being represented as a topology map”
(Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2), the processes and data involved in that
conversion are separate features that teach the three elements recited in the
disputed limitations. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
conversion/translation between optical signals to electrical signals teaches a
“translation protocol.” Final Act. 3. For example, Biegert details that such a
conversion/translation is described in an established procedure which,
converts the optical signals into electrical signals. An O/E
converter of media converter 78 may, for example, convert an
output of a photodiode . . . to set the signal to a voltage high (e.g.,
5 volts) when the photodiode detects light on optical fiber 11 and
set the signal to a voltage low (e.g., 0 volts) when the photodiode
does not detect light on optical fiber 11.
Appeal 2019-002492
Application 14/515,074

7
Biegert 15:66–16:11.
We also agree with the Examiner that the data being converted from
optical signals to electrical signals teaches both a “network topology” and a
“topology map.” Final Act. 3–4. The claims recite a “network topology
being represented as a topology map.” As such, a topology map that
represents a network topology teaches both a “network topology” and a
“topology map.” As the Examiner finds, the data converted from Biegert’s
optical signals, i.e., the substance of the data, teaches a “network topology
being represented as a topology map.” Id. at 4 (citations omitted). For
example, Biegert details that its optical signals include data representing a
network topology by “operat[ing] in accordance with a GPON protocol, a
BPON protocol, a GEPON protocol, an active Ethernet protocol or any other
passive or active optical network protocol” and carry “IP packets transmitted
over [optical] fiber 11.” Biegert 7:17–21, 28:21.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Biegert teaches “a translation protocol” and a “network topology being
represented as a topology map,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claims 8 and 14.

“common attributes”
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Biegert teaches
“common attributes between an abstraction of a first topology format
associated with the first layer and an abstraction of a second topology
format . . . a common abstraction model (CAM) that includes information
relating to the common attributes,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited
in claims 8 and 14. Appeal Br. 11–12; see id. at 13–14. Specifically,
Appeal 2019-002492
Application 14/515,074

8
Appellant argues the “electrical signals of [Biegert] cannot possibly be
considered to include information related to common attributes between an
abstraction of a first topology format associated with the first layer and an
abstraction of a second topology format.” Id. at 12.
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Biegert’s optical layer signals teach “a first topology format” and its MAC
layer signals teach “a second topology.” Final Act. 3 (citing Biegert 13:5–
10, 28:10–24, Figs. 4, 7, 12A). Further, as discussed above, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Biegert’s electrical signals, which are converted
optical layer signals and are further converted into MAC layer signals, teach
“a common abstraction model (CAM).” Id. at 4 (citations omitted). Still
further, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the “data conver[ted]” in
Biegert’s electrical signals teach “common attributes between an abstraction
of a first topology format associated with the first layer . . . and an
abstraction of a second topology format.” Id. at 3–4 (citations omitted).
Appellant’s argument that the “electrical signals of [Biegert] cannot
possibly be considered to include information related to common attributes
between an abstraction of a first topology format associated with the first
layer and an abstraction of a second topology format — to take a position
otherwise strains credulity” (Appeal Br. 12) does not explain why the
information in Biegert’s converted electrical signals does not teach the
claimed common attribute information. Appellant’s mere assertion that
Biegert’s electrical signals do not teach what the claims recite does not
provide any persuasive explanation as to how the Examiner erred. See Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075–76; see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356
Appeal 2019-002492
Application 14/515,074

9
(Fed. Cir. 2011). For this reason alone, Appellant’s argument identifies no
error in the Examiner’s rejection.
In addition, although not necessary to reach our decision, Biegert’s
converted electrical signals, which are converted optical signals that are then
converted into MAC layer signals, include information relating to “common
attributes between an abstraction of a first topology format associated with
the first layer and an abstraction of a second topology format.” Appeal
Br. 12. For example, the optical signals, converted into electrical signals,
and the MAC layer signals, converted from those same electrical signals,
both include information regarding “Ethernet frames [or] ATM cells.”
Biegert 28:10–26.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Biegert teaches “common attributes between an abstraction of a first
topology format associated with the first layer and an abstraction of a second
topology format . . . a common abstraction model (CAM) that includes
information relating to the common attributes,” as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 8 and 14.

Remaining Claims
Appellant does not argue separate patentability for dependent
claims 2–6, 9–13, 15, 16, 18, and 20–23, which depend directly or indirectly
from claims 1, 8, and 14. See Appeal Br. 14–15. Accordingly, for the
reasons set forth above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 2–6, 9–13, 15, 16, 18, and 20–23.

Appeal 2019-002492
Application 14/515,074

10
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 23 103 Biegert, Okamoto 1–6, 23
8–13 103 Biegert, Lee 8–13
14–16, 18,
20–22
103 Okamoto, Biegert,
Yadav
14–16, 18,
20–22

Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–16,
18, 20–23

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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED