Ex Parte Yegin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 18, 2009

10272092 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 18, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ALPER E. YEGIN
________________

Appeal 2008-1731
Application 10/272,092
Technology Center 2100
________________

Decided:1 February 18, 2009
________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-1731
Application 10/272,092

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 45. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
A link-layer trigger protocol is disclosed for use in data
communications between a client and a wireless access device, where the
client and the wireless access device are operable to communicate with each
other using a link-layer trigger datagram. According to the discussion at the
middle of page 12 of the principal brief on appeal, Appellant considers
independent claim 1 as representative of all claims on appeal. We do the
same. Claim 1 is reproduced here:
1. A method for providing trigger notification to a client using a
wireless access device to establish a wireless link with an access point,
comprising the steps of:

identifying an address of the wireless access device connected
with the client, wherein the client has an IP address separate from the
address of the wireless access device;

registering the client with the wireless access device;

generating an L2 trigger datagram with the wireless access
device when the wireless access device experiences an L2 trigger
event; and

sending the L2 trigger datagram to the client at the client's IP
address.

Appeal 2008-1731
Application 10/272,092

3
PRIOR ART AND EXAMINER’S REJECTION
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence of
anticipation:
Fantaske 6,922,557 B2 Jul. 26, 2005 (filed Dec. 3, 2001)
Claims 1 through 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Fantaske.

ISSUES
1. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Fantaske teaches an L2 trigger event?
2. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Fantaske teaches that a client has an IP address separate from the address of
a wireless access device and sending the L2 trigger event to the client’s IP
address?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s background of the invention discussion at page 1,
line 11 through page 2, line 15, of the Specification admits that several
argued and claimed features are known in the art. So-called link-layer
events were known in the art as well as that the link-layers of the client and
the access node have knowledge and control of the link-layer events. As
revealed in the Specification, at page 1, line 25 through page 2, line 1, it is
stated that “[l]ink-layer events are communicated to the network-layer in the
form of a link-layer (L2) trigger.” The discussion continues at lines 3 and 4
by stating: “[l]ink-layer and network-layer of a client are co-located on the
same IP node in a standard network stack implementation.”
Appeal 2008-1731
Application 10/272,092

4
2. Appellant’s Specification, at page 2, lines 18 and 19, states:
“[a]n embodiment of the present invention discloses a link-layer (‘L2’)
trigger protocol for data communication between at least one client and a
wireless access device or point.”
3. Appellant’s Specification, at page 5, lines 20 and 21, states:
“[t]he terms link-layer or L2 as used herein are used to refer to Layer 2 of
the Open Systems Interconnect (‘OSI’) model.” This is consistent with the
teaching in Fantaske beginning at column 8, line 56.
4. Appellant’s Specification, at page 8, lines 9 and 10, states:
“[t]he preferred L2 trigger protocol is a user datagram protocol (‘UDP')
based client-server protocol.” This datagram protocol is also discussed in
Fantaske, at column 2, lines 26 through 36, as part of the prior art. Fantaske,
at column 2, lines 3 through 25, indicates that it was known in the art that
two separate IP addresses of each wireless device may be interconnected
with their respective servers, such that each server has its own Internet
address. Wireless terminal datagrams are taught here as well.
5. Fantaske’s prior art Figure 1 and the discussion, at least
between column 5, line 59 and column 6, line 24, indicates that dialogs/so-
called trigger events exist in the communications between wireless terminal
104, wireless access server 110, and the respective network computers 106.
Particularly, it is stated at column 6, lines 16 through 21, that “[u]pon receipt
of the TCP segments, the IP protocol layer 124 on the wireless terminal 104
formats the TCP segments into IP datagrams, each having an IP header
identifying the network address of the destination computer 106 and the
network address of the wireless terminal 104” (bolding omitted). Note also
Appeal 2008-1731
Application 10/272,092

5
the corresponding discussion in the paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7 of
Fantaske.
6. Fantaske’s first embodiment is shown in Figure 2. Link-layer
datagrams are taught to be encapsulated among other layers first revealed in
the summary of the invention at column 3, lines 55 through 60 and repeated
at column 4, lines 7 through 23. With respect to the well-known OSI model,
this is repeated at column 9, lines 1 through 8 and at least at column 17, lines
33 through 44. Corresponding illustrations appear in figures 6a-b and 7a-b.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over
the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope
of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications
not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim
must then be compared with the prior art.

ANALYSIS
To the extent Appellant’s arguments in the Brief and Reply Brief
argue that Fantaske does not teach the claimed L2 trigger datagram, the fact
that a client may have an IP address separate from the IP address of the
Appeal 2008-1731
Application 10/272,092

6
wireless access device, and the existence of so-called L2 trigger protocols
were known in the art in view of Appellant’s own admissions and in view of
significant teachings in the six findings of fact we noted earlier in this
Decision.
Additionally, from these findings, Fantaske’s prior art Figure 1
illustrates that is was known for a wireless terminal to communicate in part
through its IP address layer 124 to the IP address layer 106 of the
corresponding network computer by means of an intermediate wireless
access device/server 110. In a Fantaske’s initial embodiment in Figure 2,
there is a corresponding wireless terminal 204 that connects through an
access point server 210 to respective network computers 206. Fantaske’s
layer encapsulation process is implemented by the showing of the wireless
terminal 204 in Figure 3 and the access point 210 in Figure 5 utilizing an
access dialog in Figures 6a-6b using layered communications techniques
illustrated in Figures 7a-7b consistent with the claimed invention. Even
though so-called trigger events are generally taught from our perspective in
the discussion noted with respect to Fantaske’s Figure 1 and Finding of Fact
5, the Examiner indicates at page 14 of the Answer that trigger events were
known in the art according to Appellant’s own discussion of them in the
Specification, at page 4, lines 21 and 22, and page 7, beginning at line 14.
Appellant’s Specification is not written in such a manner as to indicate that
such trigger events were not known in the art but were Appellant’s own
contribution in the art.
With respect to the positions set forth in the Reply Brief, because of
Appellant’s recognition here that datagrams do exist in Fantaske’s link-
layer, his encapsulation process permits them to be generated within a
Appeal 2008-1731
Application 10/272,092

7
plurality of layers since there is no stated layer in representative independent
claim 1 on appeal that generates the claimed L2 trigger datagrams per se. As
we observe with respect to the latter pages of the Reply Brief, the issues
appear to be more focused. The claimed trigger notification in independent
claim 1 in its preamble merely requires communication with a/any
respective client using a wireless access device and not necessarily to the
one that is directly connected to it, as is apparently intended according to the
showings in disclosed Figures 1 and 2. Thus, the Examiner’s evidence
found in Fantaske and Appellant’s own admissions appear to indicate that a
given client may communicate to its intended destination client through an
intermediate server that directly connects to the remote client, such as by the
wireless access server 110 in Fantaske’s Figure 1 and the access point server
210 in his first embodiment in Figure 2. A corresponding showing exists in
Figure 8 in a second embodiment in Fantaske.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in presenting
evidence from Fantaske that this reference teaches the client trigger
events/L2 trigger datagrams.
2. Appellant has also not shown that the Examiner erred in
presenting evidence of anticipation of the argued feature of representative
independent claim 1 on appeal that a client has an IP address separate from
that of a wireless access device.

Appeal 2008-1731
Application 10/272,092

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1 through 45 over Fantaske
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc

MACPHERSON KWOK CHEN & HEID LLP
2033 GATEWAY PLACE
SUITE 400
SAN JOSE, CA 95110