Ex Parte Absillis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2013

11370556 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LUC ABSILLIS
____________

Appeal 2011-006344
Application 11/370,556
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006344
Application 11/370,556

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–14 and 16–191. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to providing a client
device with an Internet Protocol (IP) address in response to completion of an
authentication protocol process. The IP address can be provided in
accordance with, for example, the dynamic host configuration protocol
(DHCP). The authentication protocol can be, for example, Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) over Local Area Network (LAN) or
“EAPOL,” or similar authentication protocol that involves an exchange of
messages between the client device and a network to which the client device
seeks access. In an exemplary embodiment, the DHCP process is, in effect,
linked with the EAPOL process. Thus, if a malfunction or other event in the
network results in a client device that has previously been authenticated to
lose its ability to communicate with the network, when the access node
thereafter initiates authentication of the client device, the client device
responds by not only proceeding with authentication but also by requesting a
new IP address. Spec. ¶¶ 0010–11.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed limitations in
italics):

1. A method for providing an Internet Protocol (IP) address
to a client device in a data network, comprising:

1 Claims 3 and 15 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2011-006344
Application 11/370,556

3
detecting completion of an authentication protocol
process, comprising an exchange of authentication messages
between the client device and a network node, after the client
device has lost communication with the data network;
issuing a release message indicating that the client device
is no longer using a previously provided IP address; and
issuing a request for a new IP address in response to the
detection of the completion of the authentication protocol
process after the client device has lost communication with the
data network.

Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–11, 14, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Voit (US 2006/0268856 A1; Nov. 30,
2006) and Carolan (US 2001/0028660 A1; Oct. 11, 2001).
Claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Voit, Carolan and Uh (US 2006/0112269 A1;
May 25, 2006).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Voit and Carolan
teaches or suggests “detecting completion of an authentication protocol
process, comprising an exchange of authentication messages between the
client device and a network node, after the client device has lost
communication with the data network,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claim 14?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Voit and Carolan
teaches or suggests “[a] method for continuing a network session following
an interruption in communication between a network node and a client
device, comprising: receiving an acceptance message from the network node
Appeal 2011-006344
Application 11/370,556

4
upon completion of an authentication protocol process following the
interruption,” as recited in claim 8?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action and the arguments in the Reply Brief presented in response to the
Answer. We agree with Appellant and highlight and address specific
findings and arguments as follows.
The Examiner relies on Carolan for teaching “after the client device
has lost communication with the data network,” and “following the
interruption.” Ans. 4, 6, 8 (citing Carolan ¶ 0026, ll. 29–33); Ans. 12 (citing
¶ 0028, ll. 10–13, 23–43). We agree with Appellant’s arguments that
Carolan discusses registration and/or authentication of a user to a particular
service via a registration server without regard to whether or not the device
has lost communication with the server, or following an interruption. App.
Br. 5-7. We also agree that Carolan is silent with respect to a loss of
communication, and instead appears to assure that communications are not
lost (no interruption in service) by setting up a new address with a new
service prior to release of a pre-existing address associated with a pre-
existing service. App. Br. 6 (citing Carolan ¶¶ 0026, 0030); App. Br. 7. We
further agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s additional findings in the
Answer are not supported by a sufficient factual basis. Reply Br. 1; see Ans.
12 (citing ¶ 0028, ll. 10-13, 23-43).
For at least these reasons, we cannot sustain the § 103 rejections of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–11, 14, 16 and 17 over Voit and Carolan and dependent
claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 18 and 19 over Voit, Carolan and Uh.
Appeal 2011-006344
Application 11/370,556

5
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–14 and 16–
19.
REVERSED

tj