Ex Parte ZHANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2018

13198937 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/198,937 08/05/2011
97291 7590 11/20/2018
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Shuang Liu(Huawei ID 00344817)
Building Gl-2, Huawei Industrial Base,
Bantian, Longgang District,
Shenzhen, 518129
CHINA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
FataiZHANG
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
81344933US07 8753
EXAMINER
LUO, ANTHONY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2018 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
shiming.wu@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FATAI ZHANG and JIANHUA GAO
Appeal2016-008323
Application 13/198,937 1
Technology Center 2400
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-8, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). An
oral hearing was held on November 8, 2017. A transcript of the oral hearing
will be made of record in due course.
We REVERSE. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Huawei Technologies
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
December 28, 2015; ReplyBrief("ReplyBr.") filed July 19, 2016;
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 19, 2016; Final Office Action
("Final Act.") mailed April 29, 2015; and original Specification ("Spec.")
filed August 5, 2011.
Appeal2016-008323
Application 13/198,937
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention3
Appellants' invention relates to "a resource state monitoring method,
device and communication network, so as to increase network stability."
Spec. ,r 9. According to Appellants, existing optical networks (e.g.,
automatically switched optical network (ASON) or generalized multi-
protocol label switching (GMPLS) network) must perform three
synchronization processes before providing an available resource and
forming a consistent global topology, including: ( 1) "[a] vertical
synchronization ( or local initialization)" where "a local resource of a control
plane is initialized"; (2) "[a] horizontal synchronization (or link discovery)"
where "links, [between nodes] are acquired"; and (3) "a global
synchronization" where "a global consistent topology" is obtained. Spec.
,r,r 4--7. However, "inconsistency may occur between [1] the control plane
resource state and [2] the data plane resource state due to a network
abnormality" during a network running process which would negatively
impact network stability. Spec. ,r 8. Nevertheless, "there is no mechanism
for detecting the control plane resource state and the data plane resource
state in the network running process in the existing [optical] systems." Spec.
,r 8. As such, Appellants propose "a resource state monitoring device"
( shown in Figure 6) adapted to detect [ 1] "a data plane resource state" and
[2] "a control plane resource state" of each node within an optical network
during a network running time and to report any inconsistency between
3 The present application is a continuation of U.S. Serial 12/421,074, filed
April 9, 2009, now U.S. 8,014,300.
2
Appeal2016-008323
Application 13/198,937
thereto to a management plane of each of the nodes in order to increase
network stability. Spec. ,r,r 9--10.
Appellants' Figure 6 is reproduced below.
r601
Node
/603 /601
C o.mmunicat.krn Resource state
nEon-itodng dcv ir:t .._ ____ ... control .:k'.vicc
H
/601
Node
FTG. 6
Appellants' Figure 6 shows resource state monitoring device 603 adapted to
detect and report inconsistency between [ 1] a data plane resource state and
[2] a control plane resource state of each node 601.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1--4 and 6-8 are pending on appeal. Claims 1 and 6 are
independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter, as reproduced
below, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A resource state monitoring method, comprising:
[I] determining whether [IA] a control plane resource
state of a first node and [IB] a control plane resource state of a
second node are consistent, wherein the second node is adjacent
to the first node in a network topology structure, and wherein the
control plane resource state of the first node comprises a
subnetwork point (SNP) state of a control plane of the first node,
and the control plane resource state of the second node comprises
an SNP state of a control plane of the second node;
based on a determination that the control plane resource
state of the first node and the control plane resource state of the
3
Appeal2016-008323
Application 13/198,937
second node are not consistent, [2] determining whether [2A] a
data plane resource state of the first node and [2B] the control
plane resource state of the first node are consistent during a
network running time; and
based on a determination that the data plane resource state
of the first node and the control plane resource state of the first
node are not consistent, [3] reporting the inconsistency to a
management plane of the first node.
App. Br. 13 (Claims App.) (bracketing added).
EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS and REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1-3 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Xu (US 8,068,483 B2; issued Nov. 29, 2011),
Aubin et al. (US 7,680,934 B2; issued Mar. 16, 201 O; "Aubin"), and Fant et
al. (US 2004/0076151 Al; published Apr. 22, 2004; "Fant"). Final Act. 4--
12.
(2) Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Xu, Aubin, Fant, and Windisch et al. (US 7,447,225 B2;
issued Nov. 4, 2008; "Windisch"). Final Act. 11-13.
ANALYSIS
In support of the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and, similarly,
claim 6, the Examiner finds the combination of Xu, Aubin, and Fant teaches
all the claim limitations. Final Act. 4--6. In particular, the Examiner finds
Wu teaches a resource state monitoring method and device comprising [ step
1] "determining whether [ 1 A] a control plane resource state of a first node
and [IB] a control plane resource state of a second node are consistent." Id.
at 4 (citing Wu 5:4--16, 5:45--46, 7:50-52, Fig. 1). (Emphasis omitted).
4
Appeal2016-008323
Application 13/198,937
Wu's Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration:
Egress node F
of connection A-B-E-F
incoming port of
egress node F
Wu's Figure 1 shows an optical network including, for example, six (6)
nodes A-F connected via optical links to operate in [ 1] a data (transmission)
plane AT-FT and [2] a control plane AC-FC (that can be physically
combined but are logically separated) to establish connections ( optical links)
between nodes.
Wu teaches "the [] control planes of nodes communicate with each
other by optical links," as shown in Figure 1, and control migration from the
created connection of A-B-E-F in a switched connection in a transmission
network so that "each node obtains its connections of optical links." Wu
5:4--57. According to Wu's migration, node A forwards a connection
migrating request along the created connection of A-B-E-F (node by node)
until node F receives the message for verification and the compares node ID
and port ID of the egress node carried in the message with the actual node
ID and port ID of node F to determine if they are consistent. Wu 7:43-52.
5
Appeal2016-008323
Application 13/198,937
Separately, the Examiner finds Fant teaches [ step 2] "determining
whether [2A] a data plane resource state of the first node and [2B] the
control plane resource state of the first node are consistent during a network
running time." Id. at 6 ( citing Fant ,r 6). (Emphasis omitted).
Fant teaches techniques for improving the reliability of connections in
an optical network, shown in Figure 1, using connection identifiers. Fan ,r 1.
In the event of a connection failure, network resources are dynamically
reconfigured to carry out the higher priority connection within the network
topology, shown in Figure 5. According to Fant, "to maintain the integrity
of data, the control plane and the data plane are synchronized to ensure that
all network reconfiguration occurs in a precise ordered fashion and that no
data is enabled until the network has stabilized." Fant ,r 6. However, if the
control plane and the data plane are not synchronized, data can be
misdirected. Id. ,r 7.
Fant's Figure 5 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration:
~ ~ ~~---- - ___ r;1 _________ f71 _______ :
~ L:5
Fant's Figure 5 shows an optical network where a primary path A-B-C-D
fails, connection A----+D is switched to a secondary path A-E-F-D.
6
Appeal2016-008323
Application 13/198,937
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's rationale for combining Wu,
Aubin, and Fant. Instead, Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual
findings regarding Wu and Fant. First, Appellants argue Wu does not teach
or suggest Appellants' claimed [ step 1] "determining whether [A] a control
plane resource state of a first node and [BJ a control plane resource state of a
second node are consistent" as recited in claims 1 and 6. App. Br. 7-10;
Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, Wu's "port information" of a node
does not correspond to Appellants' claimed "resource state" of a control
plane or data plane, particularly when the term "resource state" is described
by Appellants' Specification as a resource occupancy status of the control
plane or the data plane, including, for example: "available," "potentially
available," "assigned," and "busy." App. Br. 8-9 (citing Spec. ,r 35); Reply
Br. 5. As such, Wu's disclosure of "comparing the ID and outgoing port
information of the nodes" is not and cannot be the same as "comparing the
control plane resource state of the nodes," i.e., Appellants' claimed
"determining whether a control plane resource state of a first node and a
control plane resource state of a second node are consistent." App. Br. 9-10
(citing Wu 7:42-52); Reply Br. 4--5.
Second, Appellants argue Fant does not teach or suggest Appellants'
claimed [ step 2] "determining whether [2A] a data plane resource state of
the first node and [2B] the control plane resource state of the first node are
consistent during a network running time." App. Br. 10-11. In particular,
Appellants acknowledge Fant teaches "synchronization [between] the
control plane and the data plane," but argue Fant's "synchronizing the
control plane and the data plane" is not the same as Appellants' claimed
[ step 2] "determining whether [2A] a data plane resource state of the first
7
Appeal2016-008323
Application 13/198,937
node and [2B] the control plane resource state of the first node are consistent
during a network running time." Id. at 10 (citing Fant ,r 6). According to
Appellants, because of Fant's synchronization, "there is no need to
determine whether the control plane and the data plane are consistent during
a network running time." Id. at 11.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that "[b ]ecause each node
has more than one port, these ports would be considered as the resource of
the nodes" and, hence, "Xu's disclosure of comparing the port information
of the nodes is similar to determin[ing] the control plane resource state of the
nodes in a broadest reasonable interpretation." Ans. 12-13. However, the
Examiner does not address Appellants' arguments regarding Fant.
We do not agree with the Examiner. During prosecution, claim terms
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). However, "the proper BRI construction is not just the broadest
construction, but rather the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification." In re Man Mach. Inteiface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1287
(Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292,
1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("A construction that is 'unreasonably broad' and
which does not 'reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure' will
not pass muster." (citation omitted)).
[T]he specification "is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single
best guide to the meaning of a disputed term".
See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
Appellants' Specification describes in relevant part:
8
Appeal2016-008323
Application 13/198,937
[0035] The resource states of the node are mainly divided into a
control plane resource state and a data plane resource state, and
the control plane SNP state may be divided into available,
potentially available, assigned and busy. The "available" state
refers to that the resource corresponding to the SNP is in an idle
state and can be used. The "potentially available" state and
"busy" state are generally the states occur in a multi-adaptable or
virtual private network (VPN), in which a connection point (CP)
of one transfer plane resource may be assigned to multiple
subnetwork points of multiple control planes to use. The
"potentially available" state refers to that the resource
corresponding to the transfer plane has not been assigned to any
control plane or management plane to use, and these control
planes potentially have a chance for using it. The "busy" state
refers to that the resource corresponding to the transfer plane has
been assigned to one of the control planes or management planes,
and the SNP state of the other control planes is the busy state,
i.e., the resource cannot be used again. The "assigned" state
generally refers to that the resource corresponding to the SNP has
been assigned, but the resource may also be assigned to a service
with a higher priority or another specified service.
Spec. ,r 35 (emphasis added).
According to Appellants' Specification, the term "resource state"
refers to a resource occupancy status of the control plane of two adjacent
nodes (i.e., first and second nodes), such as, for example: "available,"
"potentially available," "assigned," and "busy," as Appellants argue. App.
Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 5. As such, Appellants' claimed [step 1] "determining
whether [IA] a control plane resource state of a first node and [IB] a control
plane resource state of a second node are consistent" refers to the same
control plane occupancy states of two adjacent nodes as including, for
example: (1) both "available," (2) both "busy" ( occupied), or (3) one "busy"
(occupied), one "available." Likewise, Appellants' claimed [step 2]
"determining whether [2A] a data plane resource state of the first node and
9
Appeal2016-008323
Application 13/198,937
[2B] the control plane resource state of the first node are consistent during a
network running time" refers to the different occupancy states of the same
node as including, for example: (1) "available" or (2) "busy" ( occupied).
Based on that construction, we do not agree with the Examiner that
( 1) Wu teaches Appellants' claimed [ step 1] "determining whether [ 1 A] a
control plane resource state of a first node and [lB] a control plane resource
state of a second node are consistent" and, likewise, (2) Fant teaches
Appellants' claimed [ step 2] "determining whether [2A] a data plane
resource state of the first node and [2B] the control plane resource state of
the first node are consistent during a network running time." The term
"resource state" cannot be broadly construed to encompass any type of
resource, including Wu's node ID or port ID or Wu's disclosure of
comparing port information of adjacent nodes. See Wu 7:43-52.
Based on this record, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 6 and their dependent claims 2--4 and 7-8.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1--4 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
10