Ex Parte Signaoff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 5, 2013

11403548 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2013)

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