Ex Parte Albanese et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2015

11056345 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111056,345 02/1112005
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
12/21/2015
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael J. Albanese
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.
P3635US05 8086
EXAMINER
STRANGE, AARON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2015 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. ALBANESE, JAMES ROLAND
HENDERSON, KEITH BARRACLOUGH, and
DAVID IRVINE
Appeal2013-010417
Application 11/056,345 1
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corp. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2013-010417
Application 11/056,345
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' claimed "invention relates generally to communications
and, more particularly, to data routing over network such as the internet."
Spec. 1, 11. 9-10.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 25, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal (emphases and formatting added):
1. A system comprising:
a network-distributed application routing controller,
comprising at least one processor, configured to be
implemented in a home user-network node and in a server node,
and to respond to a request for data routing between the home
user-network node and a remote user-network node by:
verifying the request as a function of
security data provided via the request,
configuring the data for routing, and
administratively controlling the home-user
network node and the server node for routing the
requested data between the home user-network
node and the remote user-network node, by
accessing and controlling the execution of a
downloaded software of the home user-network
node to route the requested data.
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
July 22, 2013); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 13, 2013); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 6, 2013); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Apr. 24, 2013); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Feb. 11, 2005).
2
Appeal2013-010417
Application 11/056,345
25. A method comprising:
receiving a request from one of a plurality of mobile
personal network access appliances;
verifying the request as a function of authentication data
for a user at the mobile personal network access appliance;
in response to the request being verified, providing a
network-based interface to the mobile personal network access
appliance, the interface providing information describing data
available to the mobile personal network access appliance, via
one of a plurality of home nodes; and
in response to a request for available data from the
mobile personal network access appliance, accessing and
controlling a programmed user application router at the home
node to transfer data to a peer-to-peer network and routing the
data to the mobile personal network access appliance.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Jennings US 2003/0088686 Al May 8, 2003
Chen et al. ("Chen") US 2004/0181706 Al Sept. 16, 2004
Hino et al. ("Hino ") US 7,237,029 B2 June 26, 2007
Traversat et al. ("Traversat") US 7 ,340,500 B2 Mar.4, 2008
Hesselink et al. ("Hesselink") US 7,917,628 B2 Mar. 29, 2011
Karr et al. ("Karr") US 8,042,163 Bl Oct. 18, 2011
3
Appeal2013-010417
Application 11/056,345
- _,,
Rejections on Appeat'
RI. Claim 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Hesselink. Final Act. 5.
R2. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-16, 18, 19, 21-23, 26, and 27 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of
Hesselink and Traversat. Id. at 6. 4
R3. Claims 3, 4, 7, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the combination of Hesselink, Traversat, and Hino.
Id. at 13.
R4. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Hesselink, Traversat, and Chen. Id. at 16.
R5. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Hesselink, Traversat, and Jennings. Id.
R6. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Hesselink, Traversat, and Karr. Id. at 17.
3 We note the§ 101 rejection of claims 1, 5, 8, 14--16, and 26, and the§ 112
rejection, have been withdrawn by the Examiner. Final Act. 2.
4 We note what appears to be a typographical error in listing claim 25 as
being subject to Rejection R2, considering the Examiner found this claim as
being anticipated in Rejection RI. See id. at 5, 6.
4
Appeal2013-010417
Application 11/056,345
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant's recommended grouping (App. Br. 6), we decide
the appeal of obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-16, 18,
19, 21-23, 26, and 27 on the basis of representative claim 1. We decide the
appeal of Rejection RI of separately argued claim 25, infra.
Remaining claims in rejections R3 through R6, not argued separately,
stand or fall with the respective independent claim from which they depend.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so
that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1-27;
and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1
and 25 for emphases as follows.
5
Appeal2013-010417
Application 11/056,345
1. § 102 Rejection RI of Claim 25
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 6-11; Reply Br. 3--4) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102( e) as being anticipated by
Hesselink is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses a method
that includes, inter alia, the steps of "verifying the request as a function of
authentication data for a user at the mobile personal network access
appliance; [and] in response to the request being verified, providing a
network-based interface to the mobile personal network access appliance,"
as recited in claim 25?
Analysis
Appellants generally contend (App. Br. 7) Hesselink does not disclose
the contested limitations of claim 25; and particularly asserts; with respect to
the verifying step:
Hesselink describes the determination of whether a user is
authorized access. However, a simple determination of access
authorization by a user is much different from "verifying the
request as a function of authentication data for a user at the
mobile personal network access appliance" since, in the claim
feature, the verification is of a request, not of a user, per se,
and, further, the verification of that request is "as a function of
authentication data for a user at the mobile personal network
access appliance." Hesselink does not verify any request "as a
function of authentication data for a user at the mobile personal
network access appliance.
Id. at 8. Appellants additionally contend, "determining access authorization
by a user is substantially different from 'verifying the request as a function
6
Appeal2013-010417
Application 11/056,345
of authentication data for a user at the mobile personal network access
appliance.' As clearly recited in the claims, the verification relates to 'the
request.' It is not a verification or authorization of the user, as in Hesselink."
Id. at 9.
With respect to the "providing a network-based interface" step of
claim 25, Appellants contend "[t]he user interface in Hasselink [sic] is not
provided responsive to the verification of the request," and further argues:
[C]laim 25 requires that it is this same verification of the
request that has been verified that then causes the providing of
"a network-based interface to the mobile personal network
access appliance, the interface providing information describing
data available to the mobile personal network access appliance,
via one of a plurality of home nodes."
App. Br. 9.
Finally, Appellants contend "the 'request' is subsequent to the
verification ... [such that] Hesselink cannot teach, 'verifying the request' as
a function of security data provided via the request,' as claimed." Id. at 11.
In response to Appellants' contentions, the Examiner finds:
The client's authentication data is verified by the security server
[and t ]he client is unable to access any of the devices on the
networks without having the authentication data being
established by the security device. Once authenticated, the
client can issue requests for the functionality of the controlled
devices.
Ans. 4 (citations omitted) (citing Hesselink col. 14, 11. 20-41; col. 14,
11. 36-54; and col. 16, 11. 25-30). The Examiner further finds Hesselink
discloses "each client can be limited in the functionality they can perform
within the controlled device based upon the authentication data of that user,"
7
Appeal2013-010417
Application 11/056,345
such that "the client has the proper access authorization to perform the
request is determined as a component of the user's identify, which had been
authenticated." Id. (citing Hesselink col. 25, 11. 7-28 and col. 14, 11. 20-41).
The Examiner also finds at least one embodiment of Hesselink
discloses using "a request by the client for a network-based interface, where
each request must be verified to determine if the user is properly
authenticated and authorized to perform that request." Id. (citing Hesselink
col. 14, 11. 20-54).
We agree with the Examiner that the above-cited portions of
Hesselink disclose the disputed limitations of claim 25.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 25.
2. Rejection R2: Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-16, 18, 19, 21-23, 26, and 27
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 4---6) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Hesselink and Traversat is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a system that includes a network-distributed application routing
controller, comprising at least one processor configured to respond to a
request for data routing between the home user-network node and a remote
8
Appeal2013-010417
Application 11/056,345
user-network node by, inter alia, "administratively controlling the home-
user network node and the server node ... by accessing and controlling the
execution of a downloaded software of the home user-network node to route
the requested data," as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Appellants contend the portion of Traversat cited by the Examiner as
teaching or suggesting the contested limitations of claim 1 "describes
services preinstalled into a peer or loaded from the network ... [but]
downloading a service so that service may be accessed does not describe or
even suggest that the downloaded software may be executed remotely so as
to route the requested data." App. Br. 12-13. Further, Appellants argue
Traversat's teaching of remote software download to a node does not teach
or suggest, once the software is downloaded, remotely controlling
"execution" of the downloaded software, particularly for the purpose of
routing requested data between a home user-network node and a remote
user-network node." Id. at 14.
We first note, as does the Examiner, claim 1 does not recite "remote"
"execution of a downloaded software." Ans. 5. "Claim 1 only requires an
administrative control of the nodes, by accessing and controlling the
execution of a downloaded software of the home user, there is no explicit
requirement for remote execution of software." Id.
Because the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over the
combined teachings of Hesselink and Traversat, the test for obviousness is
not what the references show individually but what the combined teachings
9
Appeal2013-010417
Application 11/056,345
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck &
Co., Inc. 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner relies upon Hesselink as teaching or suggesting "a
home node operating software on the data request and control of a remote
user," but does not explicitly disclose the software operating on the home
node is '"downloaded' software." Ans. 6. The Examiner relies upon
Traversat "to show an improvement where the application software can be
remotely downloaded, installed, and executing on the peer node." Id.
The Examiner's motivation to combine Traversat with Hesselink is "to
improve Hesselink's system to help improve the services provided by the
home network nodes as taught in Hesselink." Id. We agree with the
Examiner's factual findings.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art, or in the legal conclusion of
obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-16, 18, 19, 21-23,
26, and 27 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
3. Rejections R3-R6 of Claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 17, 20, and 24
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to obviousness Rejections R3 through R6 of claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 17, 20, and
24 under§ 103 (see App. Br. 14--15), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
these claims. Arguments not made are considered waived. When
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of dependent claims, the
10
Appeal2013-010417
Application 11/056,345
claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2---6) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Briefthat were not raised
in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the
Examiner's Answer will not be considered except for good cause (See 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to anticipation Rejection
RI of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over the cited prior art of record,
and we sustain the rejection.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness
Rejections R2 through R6 of claims 1-24, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the
rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
cda
11