MERU NETWORKS

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 17, 2021

2019006352 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2021)

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. 15/088,066 03/31/2016 Anil Kaushik FOR-090 2748 88268 7590 03/17/2021 Law Office of Dorian Cartwright P.O. Box 6629 San Jose, CA 95150 EXAMINER LAM, YEE F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2021 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com uspto@cartwrightesq.com vibrantnet@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANIL KAUSHIK ____________ Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before LARRY J. HUME, CATHERINE SHIANG, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The disclosed and claimed invention relates to “increasing delivery probability of multicast video transmissions.” Spec. ¶ 1. A network device detects a multicast video stream being from an upstream resource being sent to downstream multicast members. If the number of multicast members are below a threshold (e.g., 5 stations), multicast network packets can be converted to unicast network packets. On the other hand, if the number of multicast members are above the threshold, the multicast members are divided into groupings based on capabilities of the multicast members, such as data rate capability. Data rates of transmissions are set according to the group data rate capabilities. As a result, the higher data rate members are able to operate at a higher speed rather than at the lowest common denominator. Further, because there are several multicast streams being sent, packets missed from the higher data rate stream can be picked up on the lower data rate stream. Spec., Abstr. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A computer-implemented method in a network device of a data communication network, for increasing delivery probability of multicast video transmissions, the method comprising the steps of: detecting, by a processor of the network device, a video stream within a multicast transmission of network packets to multicast members; responsive to a number of the multicast members being below a threshold, converting, by the processor, the mult icast transmission to a plural i ty of unicast transmissions, wherein the unicast transmission provides an acknowledgment for received network packets from the multicast members; responsive to the number of multicast members meeting or exceeding the threshold: determining, by the processor, data rate capabilities for each of the multicast members, Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 3 grouping the multicast members into two or more groups based on corresponding data rate capabilities, and generating a multicast stream for each of the groups at distinct data rates from the multicast transmission; and sending, by a network interface of the network device, the multicast transmission downstream to the multicast members groups at the distinct data rates. References and Rejections Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis 13 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–5, 7–11, 13 103 Kish (US 2006/0098613 A1, published May 11, 2006), Gonzales (US 2013/0246631 A1, published Sept. 19, 2013) 6, 12 103 Kish, Gonzales, Ginzburg (US 2008/0002621 A1, published Jan. 3, 2008) ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) The Examiner concludes claim 13 is indefinite because Claim 13 recites limitation using “means for, step for, or generic placeholder” to perform tasks as follow: - “video multicast detection module . . . to detect . . .,” - “unicast conversion module . . . to . . . convert. . .,” and - “data rate grouping module . . . to . . . determine . . . . These limitations . . . are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). . . . However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for each of these claimed functions. Applicant has provided no means for ascertaining the requisite structure, material, or acts for performing these tasks anywhere in the specification. After careful review of the written Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 4 description, the examiner has concluded that the written description is silent as to any corresponding structure, material, or acts for these generic placeholders. Final Act. 4. Because Appellant does not argue against the Examiner’s rejection, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Obviousness On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. We have reviewed and considered Appellant’s arguments, which we find to be unpersuasive. To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer. I Appellant contends Kish does not teach “detecting . . . a video stream within a multicast transmission of network packets to multicast members,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9–10. In particular, Appellant duplicates Kish’s paragraphs 26–28 and asserts “the cited portion of Kish does not support any type of detection of a video stream because the only embodiment of the citation is a video stream, so there is nothing to detect.” See Appeal Br. 9. Appellant has not persuaded us of error. The Examiner finds “Kish in at least para 26-28 discloses that the access point receives video unicast, multicast, and broadcast packets, and the destination address of these packets are examined in order to determine whether they are video unicast, multicast, or broadcast packets.” Advisory Act. 2 (emphases added). Appellant does not respond to that finding. In the Answer, the Examiner further explains why Kish teaches the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 9–12. Specifically, the Examiner explains: In light of these passages [27 and 30 from Kish], a person Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 5 skilled in the art would have known that when the access point 120 receive these IP multicast packets containing video stream, the packets’ headers and payloads would have been read and inspected by the access point 120 for delivery and control information, for example, information such as addresses (e.g. source and destination) and protocol (e.g. the protocol used in the data portion of the IP datagram). Based on the inspection of the headers and payloads, a person skilled in the art would also have known that the access point 120 would have detected video stream within the multicast transmission. Ans. 11. Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s further findings, as Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief. Because Appellant does not persuasively respond to the Examiner’s findings, Appellant fails to show Examiner error. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). II Appellant contends Kish does not teach “responsive to a number of the multicast members being below a threshold, converting . . . ,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11. In particular, Appellant duplicates Kish’s paragraphs 42 and asserts “Clearly, para. 42 of Kish fails to disclose converting based on a number of multicast members.” Appeal Br. 11. In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner further explains why Kish teaches the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 13–15. Specifically, the Examiner analyzes Kish’s paragraphs 39 and 42 and finds such paragraphs teach “responsive to a number of the multicast members being below a threshold, converting . . . ,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 13–15. Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 6 Appellant does not critique Kish’s paragraph 39, and does not respond to the Examiner’s further findings. Therefore, Appellant fails to show Examiner error. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391. Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 7 and 13 for similar reasons. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2–6 and 8–12, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive arguments about those claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision (i) rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); and (ii) rejecting claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Ba sis Affirmed Reversed 13 112(b) Indefiniteness 13 1–5, 7–11, 13 103 Kish, Gonzales 1–5, 7–11, 13 6, 12 103 Kish, Gonzales, Ginzburg 6, 12 Overall Outcome 1–13 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANIL KAUSHIK ____________ Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before LARRY J. HUME, CATHERINE SHIANG, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Fortinet, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The disclosed and claimed invention relates to “increasing delivery probability of multicast video transmissions.” Spec. ¶ 1. A network device detects a multicast video stream being from an upstream resource being sent to downstream multicast members. If the number of multicast members are below a threshold (e.g., 5 stations), multicast network packets can be converted to unicast network packets. On the other hand, if the number of multicast members are above the threshold, the multicast members are divided into groupings based on capabilities of the multicast members, such as data rate capability. Data rates of transmissions are set according to the group data rate capabilities. As a result, the higher data rate members are able to operate at a higher speed rather than at the lowest common denominator. Further, because there are several multicast streams being sent, packets missed from the higher data rate stream can be picked up on the lower data rate stream. Spec., Abstr. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A computer-implemented method in a network device of a data communication network, for increasing delivery probability of multicast video transmissions, the method comprising the steps of: detecting, by a processor of the network device, a video stream within a multicast transmission of network packets to multicast members; responsive to a number of the multicast members being below a threshold, converting, by the processor, the multicast transmission to a plurality of unicast transmissions, wherein the unicast transmission provides an acknowledgment for received network packets from the multicast members; responsive to the number of multicast members meeting or exceeding the threshold: determining, by the processor, data rate capabilities for each of the multicast members, Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 3 grouping the multicast members into two or more groups based on corresponding data rate capabilities, and generating a multicast stream for each of the groups at distinct data rates from the multicast transmission; and sending, by a network interface of the network device, the multicast transmission downstream to the multicast members groups at the distinct data rates. References and Rejections2 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis 13 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–5, 7–11, 13 103 Kish (US 2006/0098613 A1, published May 11, 2006), Gonzales (US 2013/0246631 A1, published Sept. 19, 2013) 6, 12 103 Kish, Gonzales, Ginzburg (US 2008/0002621 A1, published Jan. 3, 2008) ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) The Examiner concludes claim 13 is indefinite because Claim 13 recites limitation using “means for, step for, or generic placeholder” to perform tasks as follow: - “video multicast detection module . . . to detect . . .,” - “unicast conversion module . . . to . . . convert. . .,” and - “data rate grouping module . . . to . . . determine . . . . 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated Mar. 16, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Jan. 4, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); and (3) Examiner’s Answer dated Mar. 5, 2019 (“Ans.”). We note Appellant did not file a Reply Brief in response to the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Answer. Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 4 These limitations . . . are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). . . . However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for each of these claimed functions. Applicant has provided no means for ascertaining the requisite structure, material, or acts for performing these tasks anywhere in the specification. After careful review of the written description, the examiner has concluded that the written description is silent as to any corresponding structure, material, or acts for these generic placeholders. Final Act. 4. Because Appellant does not argue against the Examiner’s rejection, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Obviousness On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. We have reviewed and considered Appellant’s arguments, which we find to be unpersuasive. To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer. I Appellant contends Kish does not teach “detecting . . . a video stream within a multicast transmission of network packets to multicast members,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9–10. In particular, Appellant duplicates Kish’s paragraphs 26–28 and asserts “the cited portion of Kish does not support any type of detection of a video stream because the only embodiment of the citation is a video stream, so there is nothing to detect.” See Appeal Br. 9. Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 5 Appellant has not persuaded us of error. The Examiner finds “Kish in at least para 26-28 discloses that the access point receives video unicast, multicast, and broadcast packets, and the destination address of these packets are examined in order to determine whether they are video unicast, multicast, or broadcast packets.” Advisory Act. 2 (emphases added). Appellant does not respond to that finding. In the Answer, the Examiner further explains why Kish teaches the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 9– 12. Specifically, the Examiner explains: In light of these passages [27 and 30 from Kish], a person skilled in the art would have known that when the access point 120 receive these IP multicast packets containing video stream, the packets’ headers and payloads would have been read and inspected by the access point 120 for delivery and control information, for example, information such as addresses (e.g. source and destination) and protocol (e.g. the protocol used in the data portion of the IP datagram). Based on the inspection of the headers and payloads, a person skilled in the art would also have known that the access point 120 would have detected video stream within the multicast transmission. Ans. 11. Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s further findings, as Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief. Because Appellant does not persuasively respond to the Examiner’s findings, Appellant fails to show Examiner error. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 6 II Appellant contends Kish does not teach “responsive to a number of the multicast members being below a threshold, converting . . . ,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11. In particular, Appellant duplicates Kish’s paragraphs 42 and asserts “Clearly, para. 42 of Kish fails to disclose converting based on a number of multicast members.” Appeal Br. 11. In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner further explains why Kish teaches the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 13–15. Specifically, the Examiner analyzes Kish’s paragraphs 39 and 42 and finds such paragraphs teach “responsive to a number of the multicast members being below a threshold, converting . . . ,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 13–15. Appellant does not critique Kish’s paragraph 39, and does not respond to the Examiner’s further findings. Therefore, Appellant fails to show Examiner error. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391. Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 7 and 13 for similar reasons. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2–6 and 8–12, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive arguments about those claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision (i) rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); and (ii) rejecting claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2019-006352 Application 15/088,066 7 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 13 112(b) Indefiniteness 13 1–5, 7–11, 13 103 Kish, Gonzales 1–5, 7–11, 13 6, 12 103 Kish, Gonzales, Ginzburg 6, 12 Overall Outcome 1–13 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED