TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2020

14797764 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 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.
14/797,764 07/13/2015 ALPER S. AKYUREK TI-75474 7916
23494 7590 06/01/2020
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
LEE, GIL H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2020 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALPER S. AKYUREK, ARITON E. XHAFA, JIANWEI ZHOU,
and RAMANUJA VEDANTHAM
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764
Technology Center 2400
Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, 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 1–45, which are all of the pending
claims.2 See Final Act. 1. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the applicant, Texas
Instruments Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
2 By way of amendment submitted November 20, 2018, Appellant canceled
claims 46 and 47, which were rejected in the Final Action. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant’s Specification, the “disclosure relates to
networks, and more particularly to address generation for ad hoc
communications networks.” Spec. ¶ 2. By way of background, the
Specification describes “[a]d hoc wireless communications networks” that
are “formed dynamically as nodes come within range of existing network
resources.” Id. ¶ 3. “These networks may be utilized in many applications
to provide communications between lower level devices on the networks
such as sensors and upper tier devices communicating with the sensors.” Id.
The Specification notes that the networks may comprise “parent” and
“child” nodes, wherein “each node within the network can have a preferred
parent node that it can communicate in an upwards direction and possibly
having multiple child nodes for downward communications.” Id. ¶ 4. “The
parent nodes are sometimes referred to as a root node or intermediate node
and the child nodes are sometimes referred to as leaf nodes.” Id. The
Specification explains that, to enable message routing between nodes,
routing tables may be utilized; however, one drawback noted is that such
routing tables and the processing required “can cause memory scalability
and/or power consumption problems in the network depending on a given
network configuration.” Id.
Appellant’s Specification purports to describe and claim an
improvement in address generation for ad hoc communications networks in
which, for example, “[a]n address generator assigns a unique network
address to the child node by appending an address value of a number of bits
to a parent address of the parent node to create the unique network address
for the child node.” Id. ¶ 6. “This alleviates the need for routing tables as
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

3
with conventional systems and thereby conserves memory in the respective
nodes of the system.” Id. ¶ 16.
Claims 1, 14, 19, and 30–33 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below with the disputed limitation italicized, illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
1. A network comprising:
at least two nodes that employ a routing protocol to
communicate across a network, where one of the at least two
nodes is a parent node and another of the at least two nodes is a
child node of the parent node;
an address generator to assign a unique network address
to the child node by appending an address value of a number of
bits unrelated to a MAC address of the child node to a parent
address of the parent node to create the unique network address
for the child node, wherein the number of bits unrelated to a
MAC address of the child node is less than a number of bits
associated with a network address of the parent node.
REFERENCES3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Anipko
Xu
Haddad
Li
Purohit
US 2009/0222559 A1
US 2009/0257439 A1
US 2010/0189264 A1
US 2012/0290700 A1
US 2016/0043942 A1
Sept. 3, 2009
Oct. 15, 2009
July 29, 2010
Nov. 15, 2012
Feb. 11, 2016

3 All references are identified by the first-named inventor.
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

4
REJECTIONS4
Claims 30–45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Li and Haddad. Final Act. 9–15.
Claims 1–5, 7–9, 12, 14, 16–18, and 21–29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Purohit, Li,
and Haddad. Final Act. 15–23.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Purohit, Li, Haddad, and
Anipko. Final Act. 29–31.
Claims 6, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Purohit, Li, Haddad, and Xu.
Final Act. 23–28.
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions and we adopt as our own the findings and conclusions set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken. We highlight
the following for emphasis.
With regard to claim 1, the Examiner relies on Purohit for teaching “at
least two nodes that employ a routing protocol to communicate across a
network, where one of the at least two nodes is a parent node and another of
the at least two nodes is a child node of the parent node” (Final Act. 15
(citing Purohit ¶¶ 33, 37)); relies on Li for teaching “assign a unique

4 All rejections are under the provisions of Title 35 of the United States
Code in effect after the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act of 2011.
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

5
network address to the child node by appending an address value of a
number of bits unrelated to a MAC address of the child node to a parent
address of the parent node to create the unique network address for the child
node” (id. at 16 (citing Li ¶¶ 70, 71)); and relies on Haddad for teaching
“wherein the number of bits unrelated to a MAC address of the child node is
less than a number of bits associated with a network address of the parent
node” (id. at 16–17 (citing Haddad ¶ 73)). Claims 2–20 and 30–33 contain
similar limitations, and the Examiner makes similar findings (albeit relying
only on Li and Haddad for claims 30–33, which recite only the address
generator). Id. at 9–15, 17–23, 25–27, 29.
Claims 6, 15, 19, and 20 additionally recite “an address router that
performs a comparison between unique address values of at least two child
nodes and a destination address that is specified in a message and routes the
message through a selected one of the at least two child nodes to another
node that is a closest match to the destination address,” for which the
Examiner additionally relies on Xu. Id. at 24–25, 28 (citing Xu ¶ 36).
Claims 10, 11, and 13 additionally recite “wherein the address
generator further comprises a duplicate detector to detect an addressing
conflict between at least two child nodes in a common network hierarchy
level having the same unique network address,” for which the Examiner
additionally relies on Anipko. Id. at 29–31 (citing Anipko ¶¶ 3, 68)).
With regard to dependent claims 21–29 and 34–45, which each recite
a specific number of bits (one, two, or four), the Examiner relies on Haddad.
Id. at 14–15, 23 (citing Haddad ¶ 73).
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

6
Appellant presents three main arguments, which are repeated
throughout the Appeal Brief for the applicable claims:
(1) the Examiner errs in finding Haddad teaches or suggests “wherein
the number of [bits unrelated to a MAC address of the child node / randomly
generated bits] is less than a number of bits associated with a network
address of the [parent node / another apparatus],” as variously recited in
independent claims 1, 14, 19, and 30–33 (herein, the “relative number of bits
limitations”) (see Appeal Br. 13–41, 46–48);
(2) the Examiner errs in finding Haddad teaches or suggests “wherein
the number of bits is [one / two / four],” as variously recited in dependent
claims 21–29 and 33–45 (herein, the “exact number of bits limitations”) (see
Appeal Br. 51–62, 70–72); and
(3) the Examiner errs in finding Xu teaches or suggests “an address
router that performs a comparison between unique address values of at least
two child nodes and a destination address that is specified in a message and
routes the message through a selected one of the at least two child nodes to
another node that is a closest match to the destination address,” as recited in
dependent claim 6 and commensurately recited in dependent claim 15 and in
independent claim 19 (herein, the “closest match routing limitations”) (see
Appeal Br. 64–67, 73).
As addressed below, none of these arguments persuade us of
Examiner error.
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

7
A. Relative Number of Bits Limitations
(Independent claims 1, 14, 19, and 30–33)
With regard to claim 1,5 the Examiner finds Haddad discloses the
relative number of bits limitations because it discloses “obtaining [an] IP
address by concatenating variable number of randomly generated bits to
prefix.” Final Act. 17 (citing Haddad ¶ 73) (italicization omitted). In
particular, the Examiner finds that Haddad discloses an embodiment in
which an address is formed by concatenating two sets of bits, with one set
representing a prefix, which the Examiner maps to the bits associated with
the network address of the parent node, and the other set representing an
interface identifier (IID), which the Examiner maps to the bits “unrelated to
a MAC address of the child node.” Id. at 16–17; Ans. 4–5; Haddad ¶ 73.
The Examiner makes similar findings for the other independent claims. See
id. at 10–14, 22, 27.
Appellant argues Haddad provides an example of only a situation in
which “two set[s] of 64 bits are used” for both the prefix and the interface
identifier (IID), respectively. Appeal Br. 47–48. Appellant acknowledges
that, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 4), Haddad also states that “other
breakdowns are also possible and may be used in some embodiments.”
Appeal Br. 48 (citing Haddad ¶ 73) (italicization omitted). Appellant argues,
however, that such “speculation” in Haddad “does not further teach or
suggest that such ‘other breakdowns’ include” the subject matter of the

5 The Examiner makes essentially the same findings for this limitation in
claim 1 as for the similar limitations recited in independent claims 14, 19,
and 30–33. See Final Act. 10–14, 17, 22, 27. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 13–41,
46–48. We select claim 1 as representative of these claims, pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

8
disputed limitations in which the number of bits associated with the child
node are less than the number of bits associated with the network address of
the parent node. Id. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding must be
reversed because it is premised on “hindsight reconstruction” and also
because the cited combination would require “experimentation on the part of
anyone attempting to implement an embodiment that uses other than the
typical set of 64 bits each.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 9.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. As Appellant acknowledges,
Haddad discloses, as an example, a situation in which both sets of bits are 64
bits each, but Haddad also states that other breakdowns are also possible.
See Appeal Br. 48; see also Ans. 4; Haddad ¶ 73. The Examiner finds the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that “[i]n the context of the
paragraph [0073] of Haddad, ‘other breakdowns’ would include all other
two sets of bits totaling 128 bits.” Ans. 4. In support of this finding, the
Examiner references a “very well-known IP addressing scheme in the art”
called “CIDR (Classless Inter-Domain Routing)” that “allows for splitting of
the network prefix and the host ID into variable-length fields.” Id. at 5. The
Examiner then finds “since there are finite number of possible breakdowns
and especially since CIDR is a commonly known method in the art, undue
experimentation would not be required to try breakdowns in which the . . .
prefix is longer than 64 bits, as suggested by Haddad.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. Appellant’s argument is premised on the lack of a
verbatim disclosure in Haddad that aligns with the disputed limitation. An
obviousness analysis, however, “need not seek out precise teachings directed
to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

9
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
For example, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the
prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by
routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)
(citing In re Swain, 156 F.2d 239 (CCPA 1946)).
These principles support the Examiner’s conclusions here in light of
the teachings of the cited reference. We agree with the Examiner that,
although Haddad discloses a particular example in which the prefix and the
IID are the same number of bits, Haddad also explicitly recognizes that
“other breakdowns” are possible. See Haddad ¶ 73. And as the Examiner
also finds, and we agree, a finite number of other possible breakdowns exist.
Ans. 5. In particular, any breakdown in which the number of bits in the
prefix and the IID are not identical would mean that one would have a
greater number of bits than the other; and in that case, only two options are
possible—one option being that the number of bits in the IID is less than the
number of bits in the prefix. In light of these finite options posed by
Haddad’s disclosure, we agree that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not
have required undue experimentation to try an option in which the number
of bits in the IID is less than the number of bits in the prefix, thus suggesting
the subject matter of the “relative number of bits” limitations. See id.
Appellant provides no persuasive arguments or reasoning why the
Examiner’s finding in this regard is in error.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 14, 19,
and 30–33, along with the rejection of the dependent claims not argued
separately. See Appeal Br. 49–51, 75–76 (arguing patentability of claims 2–
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

10
5, 7–13, and 16–18 by virtue of their dependence, directly or indirectly, from
claims 1 or 14).
B. Exact Number of Bits Limitations
(Dependent claims 21–29 and 34–45)
Claims 21–29 and 34–45 recite an exact number for “the number of
bits” being one, two, or four.6 In other words, these claims do not require
merely that “the number of bits unrelated to a MAC address of the child
node is less than a number of bits associated with a network address of the
parent node” (emphasis added), but recite that “the number of bits is [one /
two / four].”
The Examiner finds that these limitations are within the teachings and
suggestion of Haddad, in view of Haddad’s disclosure that “other
breakdowns” are possible aside from a 64-bit / 64-bit split between the
prefix and the IID in the disclosed example. Ans. 5 (citing Haddad ¶ 73). In
particular, the Examiner finds:
[P]ossible breakdowns would include all sets of (x,y) in which
x is any number between 1 and 127, y is a number that is
complement of x, and x and y each represents the number of

6 Appellant and the Examiner both apparently assume that “the number of
bits” recited in these dependent claims refers to “a number of bits unrelated
to a MAC address of the child node,” and similar limitations recited in the
independent claims, and not to “a number of bits associated with a network
address of the parent node,” and similar limitations also recited in the
independent claims. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 77, 80 (Claims App’x) (claim 1
and dependent claims 21–29); Final Act. 23; Appeal Br. 51–62. Because the
independent claims contain two recitations of “a number of bits,” one
referring to bits associated with the child node and one referring to bits
associated with the network address of the parent node, the antecedent basis
for “the number of bits” recited in claims 21–29 and 31–45 is ambiguous. In
the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may consider whether this
ambiguity renders the claims indefinite.
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

11
bits for prefix and the number of bits for IID, respectively. For
example, 127-bit prefix with 1-bit IID would be a possible
breakdown of the concatenated IPv6 address, and 96-bit prefix
with 32-bit IID would be another possible breakdown.
Id. Appellant, however, argues “Haddad, however, provides NO
EXAMPLES whatsoever of ‘other breakdowns’ much less any embodiments
in which they could be used.” E.g., Appeal Br. 31.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds “[s]ince
the number of bits may be variable based on desired breakdown, it is
reasonable to conclude that Haddad also teaches that the number of bits may
be one, two, or four. Therefore, the prior art of record teaches the claim
limitations in combination.” Ans. 5 (emphasis added). We agree.
As noted above, “where the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d at 456.
Thus, where a range or parameter optimized is recognized to be a “result-
effective variable,” i.e., a variable that achieves a recognized result, the
determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the variable can be
characterized as routine experimentation, which is not inventive. See In re
Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “[T]he prior
art need not provide the exact method of optimization for the variable to be
result-effective. A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by
the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.” Id. at 1297;
see also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). As noted above, the
Examiner finds the “number of bits may be variable based on desired
breakdown,” Ans. 5, which recognizes that the number of bits is a result-
effective variable.
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

12
The outcome of optimizing a result-effective variable may still be
patentable if the claimed ranges are “critical” and “produce a new and
unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from
the results of the prior art.” Aller, 220 F.2d at 456. But Appellant makes no
such contention here, nor is one supported by Appellant’s Specification.
Rather, the Specification explains that “[t]he prefix (similar to the subnet in
IPV4) is generally assigned by an outside service provider according to the
required address space.” Spec. ¶ 37. Thus, concerns outside the Appellant’s
invention (e.g., outside service provider requirements and/or technical
standards, such as IPV4 mentioned) may dictate a minimum length of the
prefix. Appellant’s Specification then explains, where 32 bits are available
for an address and “the prefix is assigned as the first 30 bits to a unique 30
bit value[,] this leaves only 2 bits from a 32 bit value for the remaining
address space, thus leading to a maximum of 4 devices in the networks
described herein.” Id. The Specification does not provide any description of
a scenario in which assigning a particular value to the “number of bits
unrelated to a MAC address of the child node” is critical to operation of the
invention, or is based on anything other than outside constraints or design
choice.
Thus, as the Examiner finds, and we agree, there is no indication on
this record that setting the number of bits within the claimed limitations was
beyond the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art or produced any
unexpectedly beneficial properties, further supporting the Examiner’s
finding that optimizing the number of bits based on “desired breakdown”
was obvious. See Ans. 5. As the Examiner also finds, and we agree, in view
of the teachings of the cited references, one of ordinary skill in the art could
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

13
have adjusted the number of bits in Haddad’s IID as desired, to be one, two,
or four, thus (in combination with the other cited references) teaching the
subject matter of dependent claims 21–29 and 34–35. See id. Appellant has
not presented persuasive argument or evidence to rebut these findings, or
otherwise demonstrated any criticality as to the number of bits being the
particular recited numbers.
In short, Appellant has not persuasively supported its contention that
one, two, or four bits, as claimed, is inventive over the finite possible
breakdowns suggested by the prior art. We, therefore, are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21–29 or 34–
35, and we sustain that rejection.
C. Closest Match Routing Limitations
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and further recites “an address router
that performs a comparison between unique address values of at least two
child nodes and a destination address that is specified in a message and
routes the message through a selected one of the at least two child nodes to
another node that is a closest match to the destination address.” Appeal
Br. 77 (Claims App.) Claim 15, which depends from claim 14, contains a
similar recitation. Id. at 79. Independent claim 19 also contains a similar
recitation (id. at 80), and claim 20 depends from claim 19 (id.). We select
claim 6 as representative of these claims, pursuant to our authority under
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds this limitation is taught by Xu, which the
Examiner finds teaches “forwarding packet to router corresponding to best
route obtained by searching for route in longest match with destination
address.” Final Act. 24 (citing Xu ¶¶ 73, 74).
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

14
Appellant quotes the disclosures of Xu in paragraphs 72–74, then
asserts they teach “the core router searches out a best route matching the
destination address of the packet according to the mapping relationship
between the address prefix and the border router address information
registered on the core router.” Appeal Br. 65 (emphasis omitted). Appellant
then argues the Examiner’s finding is in error because “[t]here is no teaching
or suggestion in the above that there is any ‘comparison between unique
values of at least two child nodes’ and/or that ‘the message is routed through
a selected one of the at least to child nodes’.” Id.
Appellant’s contentions as to claims 1, 6, 15, and 19 amount to no
more than terse statements of what Xu purportedly discloses, followed by a
conclusory statement that Xu does not disclose or render obvious the
features of these claims. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 65. Such conclusory attorney
assertions have little or no value in identifying the Examiner’s alleged error,
and, consequently, have little persuasive value. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv)
(“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appellant has not, in particular, explained why the relied-upon
disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed feature under its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification; rather, Appellant
essentially alleges that the claimed feature is different because it is described
in different terms. Cf. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(explaining that the comparison of references to the claimed invention “is
not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”).
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

15
Despite the conclusory nature of Appellant’s argument, the Examiner
clarifies this finding in the Answer, stating as follows:
Appellant’s claims 6, 15, and 19 appear to broadly recite
longest prefix matching routing process, which is well-known
in the art. [Xu] similarly teaches longest prefix matching
routing process in which a router forwards packet to another
router associated with best route obtained by searching for a
route in longest match with the destination address (Xu: [0073]
lines 3-8, [0074] lines 1-3). Searching for best route in longest
match with destination address typically involves comparing
addresses of next-hop routers or nodes along various routes
against the destination address and selecting a node along the
route whose next-hop node has the closest match with the
destination address. As the routing continues towards the
destination address based on longest prefix matching process,
the selected node routes the forwarded packet to another node
associated with best route in longest match with destination
address, i.e. another node that is closest match to the destination
address. Therefore, the prior art of record teaches the claim
limitations in combination.
Ans. 6–7. Appellant does not further respond.
We determine the Examiner’s findings are supported by the teachings
of the cited reference, and Appellant does not provide persuasive reasoning
or evidence to rebut those findings.
For the foregoing reasons, we, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 6, 15, 19, and 20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–45 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Appeal 2019-002289
Application 14/797,764

16
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
30–45 103 Li, Haddad 30–45
1–5, 7–9,
12, 14, 16–
18, 21–29
103 Purohit, Li, Haddad 1–5, 7–9,
12, 14, 16–
18, 21–29

10, 11, 13 103 Purohit, Li, Haddad,
Anipko
10, 11, 13
6, 15, 19, 20 103 Purohit, Li, Haddad,
Xu
6, 15, 19,
20

Overall Outcome

1–45
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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