throbber
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.
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`10/034,197
`
`12/28/2001
`
`Sanchaita Datta
`
`3003.2.9A
`
`7746
`
`oamg LAW FIRM —
`°2’°“°”
`759°
`W
`2552 South Wilshire Circle
`NGUYEN, THU HA T
`SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2453
`
`NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/02/2012
`
`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):
`JOHN @ OGILVIELAWFIRM.COM
`
`john. ogilvie @ comcast.net
`
`PTOL_90A (R,V.04,07)
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`Ex parte SANCHAITA DATTA and RAGULA BHASKAR
`
`Appeal 2011—010799
`Application 10/03 4, 1 97
`Technology Center 2400
`
`Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and STEPHEN
`
`C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
`
`Examiner’s rejection of claims 22-40. Claims 1-21 have been cancelled.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
`
`The disclosed invention relates generally to routing information over
`
`multiple independent parallel private networks (Spec. 1).
`
`Independent claim 22 reads as follows:
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`Appeal 2011—010799
`Application 10/034,197
`
`A controller which controls access to multiple
`22.
`independent networks in a parallel network configuration, the
`controller comprising:
`a site interface connecting the controller to a site by a single
`logical connection;
`at least two network interfaces connecting the controller to
`respective independent parallel networks; and
`a packet path selector which selects between the network
`interfaces to split a message from the site between the networks by
`concurrently sending different packets of the message over different
`network interfaces without requiring firewall usage;
`whereby the controller uses multiple networks to concurrently
`carry different pieces of a given message so that unauthorized
`interception of message packets on fewer than all of the networks
`used to carry the message will not provide the total content of the
`
`message.
`
`The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
`
`support of the rejections:
`
`Pearce
`
`Kitai
`Goldszmidt
`
`Albright
`Dutta
`
`US 5,910,951
`
`US 5,948,069
`US 6,195,680 B1
`
`US 6,209,039 B1
`US 6,546,423 B1
`
`Jun. 8, 1999
`
`Sep. 7, 1999
`Feb. 27, 2001
`
`Mar. 27, 2001
`Apr. 8, 2003
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), the Examiner rejects claims 33, 35, and 40
`
`as being anticipated by Kitai.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`claims 22, 24, 25, and 29 over Kitai and Dutta;
`
`claims 23, 28, and 30-32 over Kitai, Dutta, and Albright;
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`Appeal 2011—010799
`Application 10/034,197
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`1)
`
`claims 26 and 27 over Kitai, Dutta, and Goldszmidt;
`
`claim 34 over Kitai and Albright;
`
`claims 36, 37 and 39 over Kitai and Pearce; and
`
`claim 38 over Kitai, Pearce, and Albright.
`
`Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 22-40?
`
`ISSUE
`
`FINDING OF FACT
`
`Kitai discloses “parallel communication” in which “data in the buffer
`
`6030 is divided into three blocks of data for every segment length” (col. 14,
`
`11. 36-3 7) and distributed over multiple communication paths “to the buffers
`
`6031, 6032, and 6033” (col. 14, l. 38 and Fig. 17) and further sent on
`
`“communication path 6110 respectively through the communication paths
`
`6012, 6013, and 6014” (col. 14, 11. 48-50 and Fig. 17).
`
`PRINCIPLES OF LAW
`
`In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
`
`reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
`
`claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone V. Medicis Pharm.
`
`Corp, 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
`
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`3
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`Appeal 2011—010799
`Application 10/034,197
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
`
`(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham V. John Deere C0., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
`
`18 (1966).
`
`“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
`
`is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
`
`KSR Int’! C0. V. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Claim 33 recites multiple parallel networks and a selector that splits a
`
`message between the parallel networks by concurrently sending different
`
`packets of the message over different network interfaces. Appellants argue
`
`that Kitai fails to disclose this feature.
`
`As stated above, Kitai discloses splitting a message into segments and
`
`sending the segments over respective (and parallel) communication paths
`
`(FF). We agree with the Examiner that this disclosure is the same as splitting
`
`a message between parallel networks by concurrently sending different
`
`packets of the message over different network interfaces, as recited in claim
`
`33.
`
`Appellants argue that the Examiner “treats ‘concurrently’ and
`
`‘parallel” as if they mean the same thing” (App. Br. 5) but that the term
`
`“concurrently” is actually used by Appellant “to describe a use of networks”
`
`(App. Br. 6). Even assuming that the term “concurrently” and “parallel”
`
`have different meanings and that “concurrently” refers to “a use of
`
`4
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`Appeal 201 l—0l0799
`Application 10/03 4, l 97
`
`networks” as Appellants argue, Appellants have nevertheless failed to
`
`adequately demonstrate that Kitai fails to disclose “concurrent use of
`
`networks” since, as described above, that is precisely what Kitai appears to
`
`disclose (i.e., splitting a message and “concurrently” sending the segments
`
`of the split message over different network interfaces and parallel
`
`communication paths during “use of the networks” — see FF).
`
`Appellants also argue that Kitai fails to disclose ‘“a single logical
`
`connection’ between the site and the inventive controller” (App. Br. 7) but
`
`does not adequately explain how the claimed “single logical connection”
`
`differs from Kitai’s single logical connection (Kitai, Fig. 17) illustrated as
`
`transmitting data from server 3000 or how the Kitai’s connection in which
`
`data is collectively received and transmitted to one (or “single”) desired
`
`destination is not a “single logical connection.”
`
`Appellants also argue that Kitai fails to disclose splitting a message
`
`because, according to Appellants, “Kitai teaches splitting packets, not
`
`splitting messages” (App. Br. 7). As described above, Kitai discloses
`
`splitting data into segments (FF). Appellants have not indicated an explicit
`
`definition of the term “message” in the Specification or how a “message” as
`
`claimed differs from the “data” of Kitai. In the absence of an explicit
`
`definition, we adopt a broad but reasonable construction of the term
`
`“message” in light of the Specification to include “data.” Since Kitai
`
`discloses splitting “data” (i.e., “messages”) and Appellants have not
`
`sufficiently pointed out any differences between the claimed “message” and
`
`5
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`

`
`Appeal 201 l-010799
`Application 10/03 4, l 97
`
`Kitai’s “data,” we are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion that Kitai
`
`supposedly fails to disclose this feature.
`
`Claims 22 and 40 recite similar features as claim 33. Appellants do
`
`not provide additional arguments in support of dependent claims 23-32 and
`
`34-39. Appellants also do not provide additional arguments with respect to
`
`any of claims 22-40 with respect to Dutta, Albright, Goldszmidt, or Pearce.
`
`CONCLUSION OF LAW
`
`We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 22-40.
`
`DECISION
`
`We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22-40.
`
`No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
`
`this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.l36(a)(l)(iV).
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013
`
`Talari Networks Inc. - Exhibit 1013

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket