Ex Parte Melia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 3, 2016

13381456 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/381,456 04/02/2012
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
11/07/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Telemaco Melia
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.
LUTZ 201384US01 1061
EXAMINER
ULLAH, SHARIF E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TELEMACO MELIA
and
Y ACINE EL MGHAZLI
Appeal2015-006296
Application 13/381,456
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection ("Final Act.") of claims 1-11, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is identified as ALCATEL LUCENT. (Br. 1.)
Appeal2015-006296
Application 13/381,456
Claimed Subject Matter
The invention generally relates to "enhancing a network-based IP
mobility management protocol to provide multihoming support." (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method for enhancing a network-based IP mobility
management protocol to provide multihoming support, said
method including providing multihoming support based on
multihoming group information, said information identifying a
group of interfaces of a Mobile Node (MN) to be managed by a
Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) on a Mobile Access Gateway
(MAG) demand under a same mobility session.
Examiner's Rejection & References
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
V. Devarapalli et al., Multiple Interface Support with Proxy Mobile 1Pv6,
Internet Engineering Task Force, NETEXT Working Group, Internet-Draft,
1-14, (2009), last visited May 14, 2013, http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-
devarapalli-netext-multi-interface-support-00. txt ("Devarapalli "). (Final
Act. 4--7.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred (Br. 4--7). We note Appellants have not
filed a Reply Brief to rebut the findings and conclusions presented in the
Examiner's Answer. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We
adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken and as set forth by the Examiner in
2
Appeal2015-006296
Application 13/381,456
the Answer (Ans. 2-6). We highlight and address specific arguments and
findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue Devarapalli fails to teach "multihoming group
information, said information identifYing a group of interfaces of a Mobile
Node (MN) to be managed by a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) on a Mobile
Access Gateway (MAG) demand under a same mobility session," as recited
in claim 1. (Br. 4---6.) According to Appellants, Devarapalli at most
describes a service identifier that identifies only one interface of a Mobile
Node's interfaces, but does not teach information identifying a group of
interfaces of the Mobile Node. (Br. 4--5.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, and we agree with
the Examiner's findings that Devarapalli discloses information that identifies
a group of interfaces of a Mobile Node to be managed under a same mobility
session, as required by claim 1. (Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 4, 5 (citing
Devarapalli Fig. 3, § 3.3).) The Examiner finds Devarapalli discloses
routing to a particular MAG using flow filters that require service identifier
information to identify which flow (i.e., over interface ifl or interface if2) is
used to send data from the Mobile Node to the MAG. (Ans. 3, 4, 6; see also
Devarapalli § 3 .3.) Thus, Devarapalli' s flow filters and service identifiers
"indicate/identify the different interfaces of a mobile node." (Ans. 6.) We
agree with the Examiner that Devarapalli' s flow filters and service
identifiers together constitute information identifYing a group of interfaces of
a Mobile Node as required by claim 1. (Ans. 6.)
Appellants contend Devarapalli' s service identifier does not identify
"a group of interfaces (plural) of the MN." Br. 4--5. Rather, "during
attachment to MAG 1, the service identifier identifies what service type to be
3
Appeal2015-006296
Application 13/381,456
delivered over the interface ij1 to the MN. Similarly, during attachment to
the MAG2, a separate service identifier identifies what service type is to be
delivered over the interface if2 to the MN." (Br. 4 (emphasis added).)
Appellants assert that "each service identifier [ofDevarapalli] merely
reference [sic] a single interface over which an identified service is to be
delivered to the mobile node." (Br. 6 (emphasis added).) Appellants'
Specification teaches a single parameter "mhgid" (multihoming group ID)
that identifies a group of interfaces (namely, ifl and if2) of the mobile node.
(Br. 5 (citing Spec. Fig. 1 ).) Appellants argue Devarapalli fails to disclose
such a multihoming group ID parameter. (Br. 5---6.) Appellants' argument is
not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not recite a single
parameter, and broadly recites "information identifying a group of
interfaces." Thus, claim 1 does not preclude the multihoming group
information from identifying the group of interfaces through multiple
identifiers each corresponding to one interface.
Appellants' arguments also do not address the Examiner's specific
findings that Devarapalli' s interfaces ifl and if2 are managed under a same
mobility session in which the Mobile Node uses the interfaces
simultaneously for sending and receiving packets. (Ans. 6; see also Final
Act. 5 (citing Devarapalli Fig. 3, § 3.3).) We agree with the Examiner's
findings.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not demonstrated
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Devarapalli. 2 For the same reasons, we
2 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether claim 1 recites a single means or functional step, and is, therefore,
4
Appeal2015-006296
Application 13/381,456
also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-11, which are not argued
separately with particularity. (Br. 6.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
not enabled for the scope of the claim. See MPEP 2164.08(a); In re Hyatt,
708 F.2d 712, 714--715 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
5