Ex Parte Signaoff et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 5, 201311403548 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER S. SIGNAOFF, TOM W. OPSAHL, EDWARD M. RILEY III, and JUSTIN S. SIGNAOFF ____________ Appeal 2011-001522 Application 11/403,548 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001522 Application 11/403,548 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-23 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The Invention Claim 14 follows: 14. A method for communicating comprising: establishing a first communication connection between a first internal controller behind a firewall and a first external controller in a first communication community, said first external controller not behind said firewall, wherein a first communication request is initiated by a local communication device connected to the first internal controller; establishing a second communication connection between a second internal controller behind a second firewall and a second external controller in a second communication community, said second external controller not behind said second firewall, wherein a second communication request is initiated by a remote communication device connected to the second internal controller; responsive to one or more of the first and second communication request requesting communication between the local communication device and the remote communication device, establishing a third communication connection between the first and second external communication controllers; and transmitting communication data between the first and second communication communities through the third communication connection, wherein said transmitting comprises: Appeal 2011-001522 Application 11/403,548 3 receiving, at a first intermediate communication device that is behind said firewall a plurality of multiport packets of data in a multiport communication protocol for communication from said local communication device in said first communication community, converting, by said first intermediate communication device, said plurality of multiport packets into a plurality of single-port packets in a single-port communication protocol, transmitting, through the third communication connection, said plurality of single-port packets to a second intermediate communication device that is behind said second firewall, receiving said plurality of single-port packets at said second intermediate communication device, reconverting, by said second intermediate communication device, said received plurality of single-port packets into said multiport communication protocol, resulting in reconverted plurality of multiport packets, and delivering, from said second intermediate communication device to said remote communication device in said second communication community, said reconverted plurality of multiport packets using two or more ports associated with said multiport communication protocol. Rejections Claims 14-16, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alt (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0036143 A1) in view of Li (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0080919 A1) (Ans. 4-9). Appeal 2011-001522 Application 11/403,548 4 Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alt in view of Li, further in view of Strathmeyer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0122964 A1) (Ans. 9-11). Claims 1-5, 9-13, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alt in view of Aasman (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0065737 A1) and Li (Ans. 11-21). Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alt in view of Aasman and Li, further in view of Strathmeyer (Ans. 21-24). ISSUE Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Does the combination of Alt and Li teach or suggest “converting, by said first intermediate communication device, said plurality of multiport packets into a plurality of single-port packets in a single-port communication protocol,” as recited in independent claim 14 and as similarly recited in independent claims 1 and 9? ANALYSIS Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 14 as obvious because the combination of Alt and Li does not teach the claim limitation quoted above (App. Br. 11). In support of their contention, Appellants argue that “[a]s the Examiner concedes, Alt proposes no such conversion or reconversion. Further, the conversion that the Appeal 2011-001522 Application 11/403,548 5 Examiner relies upon in Li is expressly taught as being performed at an endpoint device, rather than being performed at an intermediate communication device” (id.). The Examiner concluded that “the conversion/reconversion of Li would only make sense being performed on the NAT devices” (Ans. 26-27). Li discloses, however, that a tunneling driver on an endpoint device performs the conversion: When the video conferencing application makes a TCP or UDP connection, the protocol and the port number will be sent to the tunneling driver in advance of the actual data transmission on those ports. At this time, when the tunneling driver receives IP datagrams from the TCP/IP stack driver, the tunneling driver will examine the IP datagram’s protocol and port number to see if the IP datagram requires modification. (¶ [0031]). Accordingly, rather than suggesting that the conversion/reconversion be performed on an intermediate device like the NAT as required by claim 14, Li suggests that the conversion/reconversion be performed on an endpoint device. Thus, we find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 14. Because independent claims 1 and 9 also require the feature that is not taught by Alt and Li, we also find error in the Examiner’s rejection of those claims as well as the claims dependent therefrom (i.e., claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-23). Appeal 2011-001522 Application 11/403,548 6 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-23 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation