Ex Parte Abeille et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2019

12531221 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/531,221 02/10/2010
466 7590
YOUNG & THOMPSON
209 Madison Street
Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
01/30/2019
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Julien Abeille
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.
4040-1007 7752
EXAMINER
HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2019 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):
DocketingDept@young-thompson.com
yandtpair@firs ttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JULIEN ABEILLE, MARCO LIEBSCH, and
TELEMACO MELIA
Appeal2018-004019
Application 12/531,221 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JASON V. MORGAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3-15, and 17, which are all of the pending claims. 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies NEC EUROPE LTD as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 2, 16, and 18, have been canceled.
Appeal2018-004019
Application 12/531,221
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for performing route optimization
between two nodes in network based mobility management. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. Method for performing route optimization between
two mobile nodes in a network based mobility management, the
method comprising:
including two mobile nodes in a network-based mobility
management network, wherein each of the two mobile nodes is
registered with a different one of two Mobility Anchors (MA) in
the network, and where each of the two Mobility Anchors has a
control function for finding, setting up, and maintaining a route
optimized path between the two mobile nodes;
associating the two mobile nodes with an access network
via attachment to a respective different one of two access routers,
each of said access routers being assigned to a respective
different one of two Mobility Access Gateways (MAG) that each
signals a respective Internal Protocol (IP) address and location of
a respective one of the two mobile nodes to the respective one of
the two Mobility Anchors;
providing each of said to Mobility Anchors with the
control functions for finding and setting up the route optimized
path for data packet exchange between said two mobile nodes
and for maintaining localized routing states, wherein the route
optimized path for data packet exchange is a direct routing that
does not traverse said two Mobility Anchors; and
assigning one of said two Mobility Anchors as a dedicated
route optimization controller that coordinates finding, setting up,
and maintaining communication route optimization between said
two mobile nodes and associated signaling with the relevant
Mobility Access Gateways.
App. Br. (Claims Appendix 1-2).
2
Appeal2018-004019
Application 12/531,221
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Malki et al.
Patel et al.
Alfano et al.
Taniuchi et al.
US 2001/0046223 Al
US 2006/0018291 Al
US 2008/0117845 Al
US 2008/0207206 Al
REJECTIONS
Nov. 29, 2001
Jan.26,2006
May 22, 2008
Aug. 28, 2008
Claims 1, 3-15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Malki, Taniuchi, Alfano, and Patel. Final Act. 9-
23.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies primarily on Malki, finding
that it teaches all of the recited limitations except for: ( 1) gateways that are
specifically Mobile Access Gateways (Final Act. 12-13); (2) a route
optimized path that does not traverse the mobility anchors (Final Act. 14);
and (3) a dedicated route optimization controller (Final Act 15). The
Examiner relies on Taniuchi for the Mobile Access Gateways, on Alfano for
the route optimized path, and on Patel for the dedicated controller.
Relevant here, the Examiner finds Malki teaches "where each of the
two mobility Anchors has a control function for finding, setting up, and
maintaining a route optimized path between the two mobile nodes." Final
Act. 11-12 ( citing Malki ,r,r 52, 57, 58). The Examiner explains that the
cited paragraphs in Malki teach that mobility anchor point tunnels packets to
a mobile node's current address (Malki ,r 52) and that the anchor point can
3
Appeal2018-004019
Application 12/531,221
utilize existing protocols to "gain information regarding the resources
available on different paths to a node" (Malki ,r 58) and update its binding
cache and routing table (Malki ,r 57). Final Act. 11-12.
Appellants argue the Examiner has erred because Malki does not
describe any Mobility Anchors which are used for the purpose of controlling
route optimization. App. Br. 4--5. More specifically, Appellants argue the
cited portions of Malki describe route optimization that is controlled by a
mobile node, and not by a Mobility Anchor. App. Br. 5. Appellants argue
Malki's mobility anchors perform cache updates for incoming packets to be
tunneled, but they do not "find, set up, and maintain" route optimized paths
between mobile nodes. Id. According to Appellants, Malki is structurally
different than the invention recited in the claims because it "relates to
hierarchical mobility management where mobile nodes take care of mobility
management." Id. at 6.
We are persuaded the Examiner has not sufficiently shown claim 1 to
be unpatentable on this record. The cited portions of Malki describe the use
of mobility anchors to route incoming packets to a mobile node. See Malki
,r 50. However, we observe no teaching in Malki, nor does the Examiner
identify any, that any mobility anchor "has a control function for finding,
setting up, and maintaining a route optimized path between the two mobile
nodes." Rather, Malki describes only one side of the communication-the
mobile node receiving incoming packets-in the tunneling performed by the
mobility anchor to deliver those packets. See id. ,r,r 56-57. Malki does not
describe any route optimized path between two different mobile nodes, but
instead focuses on how a single mobile node maintains its connectivity to
4
Appeal2018-004019
Application 12/531,221
the network as the mobile node moves from one access router to another. Id.
,r,r 57-58. 3
Accordingly, and constrained by the record before us, we are
persuaded that Malki does not teach or suggest "where each of the two
Mobility Anchors has a control function for finding, setting up, and
maintaining a route optimized path between the two mobile nodes," as
recited in claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reason, we also do not sustain the
rejection of the remaining claims which depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-15, and 1 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
3 The Examiner states in the Answer that "some of the features that, the
[ A Jppellant states are not explicitly disclosed by Malki and Taniuchi; are
explicitly taught by Alfano, and Patel." Ans. 5. However, the rejection set
forth in the Final Office Action does not rely on Alfano and Patel for the
argued limitation, and it is not incumbent upon Appellants to argue against a
finding not made by the Examiner. Moreover, although it does appear that
Patel includes disclosure relevant to the argued limitation (see, e.g., Patel
,r,r 3 8--42), without sufficient explanation from the Examiner regarding its
relevance, we cannot sustain the rejection on this basis.
5