Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 09750903"

See other formats


■ SEP. 28. 2005 n :59AM .BARNES & TH0RNBUR6 NO. 205 P. 6/10 

''-^ I 

■ I 

I 
] 

i 
I 

Remarks i 

1. Applicant notes that the Examiner has made the Office Action final on the 
basis that the new ground of rejection set out in the Office Action was! necessitated 
by Applicant's substantial amendment contained in Applicant's arguments and 
amendments filed on December 30, 2004. However, Applicant asl<s th6 Examiner to 
note that Applicant had no i<nowledge of the newly cited reference, 'Berger et al 
(US6274e44). and therefore Applicant could not have anticipated itb application 
against the claims. Consequently, Applicant requests that the Examiner exercise 
some discretion in considering the following submission. In any event, :the following 
submission is not considered to raise new issues and therefore provides no grounds 
for refusing to enter this response. 

2. The present invention is directed to admission of traffic flows tjo a network 
resource such as a communications link in a communications network l^sed on two 
separate prices detemiined for an aggregated traffic flow on that resourpe. The two 
prices are separately related to the mean bandwidth of the aggregated traffic flow 
and a bandwidth variance of said aggregated flow. These two pricfes are then 
applied to respective mean bandwidth and variance measurements of a traffic flow to 
be admitted to the networi^ resource as a means of controlling said admission. Thus, 
the present invention enables admission of the traffic flow to be controlled by two 
price determinations relating to the bandwidth and variance of the traffib flow to be 
admitted. This has the advantage that a user of a traffic flow that is bursty in nature, 
for example, can negotiate a service level agreement or the like offering large 
variance (which increases price) but accepting a lower mean bandvJidth (which 
reduces price) thereby optimizing their quality of service regarding cost ^summation 
of prices). This example would be particulariy beneficial to users whose itraffic flows 
are time sensitive but bursty. For users whose traffic flows are not time sensitive 
and thus can be buffered without compromising quality of service, such users can 

j 

i 

I 


7 


PAGE 6f10'RCVDAT9128f2005 12:59:04 PM [Eastern DaylightM^ 


• SEP. 28. 2005 1 2:00PM ..BARNES & THORNBURG • NO. 205 P. 7/10 


arrange for a relatively large mean bandwidth guarantee but with ailow variance 
which once again enables them to optimize their quality of service vis-^'-vis cost/total 
price. 

3. The present invention makes a useful contribution to the art in tliat It provides 
a means of managing the admissions of traffic flows to a networl< resource in 
accordance with two price determinations relating to the resource, wherein the price 
detemiinatlons can be separately applied to respective corresponding characteristics 
(measurements) of a traffic flow to be admitted to the resource. 

4. The Examiner has rejected claims 21 to 36 under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being 
anticipated by Berger. Applicant has considered carefully the disclosure of Berger 
and is somewhat surprised at the conclusions arrived at by the Examiner based on 
said disclosure as they relate to claims 21 to 36. In the method of; the present 
invention as defined by claim 21, a first step comprises "sampling an aggregated 
traffic flow on a network resource to which the traffic ffow is to be admitted to obtain 

' a mean bandwidth measurement and a bandwidth variance measure 'tnent of said 
aggregated traffic flow^. Thus, it is dear that the first step of the method of claim 21 
requires knowledge of the status of the resource by way of sampling to obtain the 
mean bandwidth and bandwidth variances measurements. The method, disclosed in 
Berger is such that "the admission mechanism does not require: information 
describing the cunent status of the resource" (column 3, lines 17 to 20). It is clear 
therefore that In Berger the method does not involve any sampling of the aggregated 
traffic flow on the resource. If the Examiner is of a different opinlbn then the 
Examiner is requested to clearly point out where exactly this step of th^ method of 
claim 21 of the present invention is disclosed in Berger since the Applicant is unable 
to derive any such understanding from the disclosure of Berger. 

5. A second step of the method of claim 21 is directed to "determining from said 
mean bandwidth and variance measurements (of the aggregated traffic- ffow on ffie 


PAGE7/10'RCVDATm512:59:04 II [Eastern Daylight Tlme]'SVR:USPT(){FXIV^/24*DM 


SEP. 28. 2005 1 2:00PM , BARNES & TH0RNBUR6 NO. 205 P. 8/10 


r&source) a price for bandwidth and a separate price for varianck" (additional 
wording added for clarity). Thus, the second step of the method of Ithe invention 
requires separate prices for bandwidth and variance. In Berger, each requester is 
assigned tokens at a rate determined by the minimum guaranteed ralje associated 
with said requested which are stored in a banl< associated with said requester. 
However, if the bank is full, further tokens are stored in a bank common to all 
requesters. Firstly, the rate at which tokens are issued to any reqibester is not 
determined from mean bandwidth and/or mean variance measurements ^derived from 
the aggregated traffic flow on the resource and secondly, the assignment of tokens 
initially to a bank associated with a requester and then to a commorj bank If the 
requester's bank Is full does not comprise separate prices for bandwidth and 
variance for gaining admission to the resource. 

6. The third step of the method of dalm 21 is directed to "sampiihg the traffic 
flow to be admitted to the networii resource to measure its mean bandwidth and 
variance". There is no disclosure in Berger or any suggestion for that matter that a 
traffic flow to be admitted to a resource is sampled to detemnine its meah bandwidth 
and variance. 

7. The fourth step of the method of claim 21 comprises "applying t6 said traffic 
flow the separate prices for bandwidth and variance as a means of controlling 
admission of the traffic flow to the network resource". In Berger, a riequester is 
allowed access to the resource firstly by using tokens stored In that! requester's 
associated bank and then, once that bank is depleted, by using tokeris from the 
common bank. The common bank is shared by all requesters such that any spare 
capacity of the resource is shared across the traffic classes in proportion ihat amvals 
from each class seek to gain admittance using tokens that have overflowed into the 
spare (common) bank (column 3, line 67 to column 4. line 3). It is iquite clear 
therefore that Berger does not apply separate prices for bandwidth and {/ariance to 
each or any traffic flow wishing to be admitted to the resource. It can be ^een that in 


9 


PAGE 8m'RCVDAT912M 12:59:04 PM (Eastern Daylight Tline]'8VR:USPT0{FX^^^ 


• SEP. 28. 2005 1 2:00PM -.^BARNES & TH0RNBUR6 NO, 205 P. 9/10 

i 

j 
! 

Berger each requester must first use rts tokens relating to its guarantejed acxjess to 
the resource prior to being able to access the comnnon bank to gain access to spare 
capacity in the resource. This contrasts considerably with the method c^f the present 
invention whereby a user of a traffic flow can, for example, negotiate aj service level 
agreement offering large variance (which increases price) but acceplting a lower 
mean bandwidth (which reduces price) thereby optimizing their quality of service 
regarding cost (summation of prices). Balancing the price of, say, variance against 
the price of bandwidth is not possible in the method disclosed by Berger since ail a 
user can do is seek to gain use of some extra resources from a bommon pot 
(common bank) of extra capacity but has no mechanism to individually determine 
through a two pronged price mechanism its own level of bandwidth and variance 
independently of other users. For example, under the method of the present 
invention, a user can, independently of other users, negotiate a high bandwidth and 
high variance traffic flow if that user is wiliing to accept the cost penalty! of doing so. 
Since prices for access to the resource in the present invention are of si closed loop 
nature through sampling of the aggregated traffic flow on the resource, the 
agreements reached by users have an impact on future prices detennifiied from the 
sampling of the aggregate traffic flow on the resource. In contrast, Benger operates 
an open loop process (column 3, lines 17 to 20). j 

7. It is clear from the foregoing that Berger fails to teach significant features of 
the present invention and that the claims are therefore not anticipated by Berger, 
Also, it is noted that there is nothing in the disclosures of any other prior art 
references of record that would enable a skilled addressee to modify the disclosure 
of Berger to anive at the present invention. 


10 


PAGE9I10*RCVDAT9/2M12:59:(I4PM [Eastern Dayl^^^^ 


SEP. 28. 2005 12;00PM ^^BARNES & TH0RNBUR6 


NO. 205 P. 10/10 


8. In view of the foregoing, it Is submitted that the claims submitted herewith are 
in condition for allowance. 


August 25, 2005 


Respectfully submitted, 

Wflllam M. Lee, Jr. 
Registration No. 26,935 
Barnes & Thornburg LLP 
P.O. Box 2786 
Chicago, Illinois 60690-2788 
(312) 214-4800 
(312) 759-5646 (fax) 


CHDSOl WUES}$l371vI 


11 


PAGE10I10*RCVDAT9/28I2005 12:59:1)4 PM [Eastern Daylight Tlinel'SVRiUSPTOfFX^