Ex Parte Braam et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201410580337 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/580,337 05/23/2006 Reinhold Braam 2003P15404WOUS 3216 22116 7590 02/28/2014 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH ISELIN, NJ 08830 EXAMINER SARWAR, BABAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte REINHOLD BRAAM, MICHAEL FRANZEN, WOLFGANG GROTING, GESA LORENZ, SEBASTIAN OBERMANNS, and MALTE SCHMIDT ____________________ Appeal 2011-011695 Application 10/580,337 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011695 Application 10/580,337 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 19-38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on February 18, 2014. We affirm. The claims are directed to method for establishing a connection between a service requester (client) and a service provider (server) in a decentralized mobile wireless network. Claim 19, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 19. A method for establishing a connection between a service requester device and a service provider device in a decentralized mobile wireless network comprising a plurality of Internet Protocol (IP) routers, each router comprising a routing table, the method comprising: the service requester device sending a service discovery request message towards a service provider device via the plurality of IP routers; receiving the service discovery request message by each router; each router adding routing information pertaining to the received service discovery request message in the routing table of that router; receiving the service discovery request message by the service provider device; the service provider device responding to the received service discovery request message with a service discovery reply message to the service requester device; and at least a portion of the plurality of IP routers adding routing information of the received service discovery reply message to the routing table. Appeal 2011-011695 Application 10/580,337 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Duggi US 2005/0041627 Al Feb. 24, 2005 Elizabeth M. Royer and Chai-Keong Toh A Review of Current Routing Protocols for Ad Hoc Mobile Wireless Networks IEEE Personal Communications April 1999 (hereinafter Elizabeth) REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elizabeth et al. in view of Mohan R. Duggi with priority based upon Provisional application No. 60/497,274 filed on 08/22/2003. Appellants seek our review of this rejection. OPINION ANALYSIS The Examiner maintains that the Elizabeth reference teaches "receiving the service discovery request message by each router (See Elizabeth e.g., the source node broadcasting a route request packet to the other nodes which then forward the request to their neighbors of Figs. 3a-b, 4a-b, Page 48 ¶ [6]);" (Ans. 4). The Examiner further maintains in the rejection that "Duggi teaches at least a portion of the plurality of IP routers Appeal 2011-011695 Application 10/580,337 4 adding routing information of the received service discovery reply message to the routing table (See Duggi e.g., the appending of the PMRP and relaying the PMRP message to the next hop of ¶ [0050])." (Ans. 5). From our review of the Examiner's statement of the rejection and the responsive arguments, the Examiner does not squarely address what corresponds to the claimed "service discovery request message" from the path discovery process with a route request message (RREQ) of the Elizabeth reference. We note that the language of independent claim 1 does not identify any use of the "service" and merely records the routing information. We note that the Elizabeth reference teaches: During the process of forwarding the RREQ, intermediate nodes record in their route tables the address of the neighbor [emphasis added] from which the first copy of the broadcast packet is received, thereby establishing a reverse path. If additional copies of the same RREQ are later received, these packets are discarded. Once the RREQ reaches the destination or an intermediate node with a fresh enough route, the destination/intermediate node responds by unicasting a route reply (RREP) packet back to the neighbor from which it first received the RREQ (Fig. 3b). As the RREP is routed back along the reverse path, nodes along this path set up forward route entries in their route tables which point to the node from which the RREP came. [Emphasis added] These forward route entries indicate the active forward route. Associated with each route entry is a route timer which will cause the deletion of the entry if it is not used within the specified lifetime. Because the RREP is forwarded along the path established by the RREQ, AODV only supports the use of symmetric links. Routes are maintained as follows. If a source node moves, it is able to reinitiate the route discovery protocol to find a new route to the destination. If a node along the route moves, its upstream neighbor notices the move and propagates a link failure notification message (an RREP with infinite Appeal 2011-011695 Application 10/580,337 5 metric) to each of its active upstream neighbors to inform them of the erasure of that part of the route [7]. These nodes in turn propagate the link failure notification to their upstream neighbors, and so on until the source node is reached. The source node may then choose to reinitiate route discovery for that destination if a route is still desired. (Elizabeth 48-49) (emphasis added and emphasis in original). Therefore, we find that the Elizabeth reference evidences the claimed "each router adding routing information pertaining to the received service discovery request message in the routing table of that router;" and "at least a portion of the plurality of IP routers adding routing information of the received service discovery reply message to the routing table." Appellants contend that the Examiner has not met the requisite showing required for obviousness, and the Examiner has not provided a suggestion to combine the prior art references. (App. Br. 12). The Examiner responds that the path discovery of the Elizabeth reference is analogous to the field of endeavor of the Duggi reference. (Ans. 12-15). Appellants' general argument does not show error in the combination. Appellants contend that the Elizabeth reference teaches away from the claimed invention. (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3). The Examiner clarifies the portion of the Elizabeth reference relied on and notes that the portion identified by the Appellants was not relied upon by the Examiner. Additionally, Appellants do not show that “[t]he prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed . . . .” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). Appeal 2011-011695 Application 10/580,337 6 Appellants further contend that the cited art does not teach routers that update routing tables after receiving a service discovery request message. (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3-4). The Examiner maintains that the Elizabeth reference teaches intermediate nodes record in their routing tables the address of the neighbor. (Ans. 18-19). We agree with the Examiner, as discussed above. Appellants further contend that it is impermissible to combine the Elizabeth reference with the Duggi reference. (App. Br. 12-13). The Examiner provides the same line of reasoning as in the statement of the rejection. We find the Examiner's line of reasoning to be reasonable, and Appellants' general argument does not show error in the combination. Appellants' argument generally asserts that the Duggi reference is not prior art against the claimed invention. Appellants contend that the portion of Duggi reference is not supported by Duggi's provisional patent application. Appellants contend that the "Examiner relies on new matter in the published patent application to reject pending claims." (App. Br. 13; see generally Reply Br. 1-3). The Examiner has identified "‘Page 1 § [1]-§ [3], where Duggi teaches all the necessary steps of the invention.’" (Ans. 21). From our review of Page 1 § [1]-§ [3] of the Duggi provisional application, we agree with the Examiner that the provisional application provides enabling support for "the appending of the PMRP and relaying the PMRP message to the next hop of ¶ [0050])" as relied upon by the Examiner in the statement of the rejection. Clearly, the Duggi provisional application teaches the claimed "at least a portion of the plurality of IP routers adding routing information of the received service discovery reply message to the Appeal 2011-011695 Application 10/580,337 7 routing table" since the requesting router adds the routing information to its routing table. (One is "a portion of the plurality of IP routers"). Additionally, we note that the Duggi provisional application teaches "When an intermediate node receives this message, it learns the path information to the source." (§ [ 2]). The Duggi provisional application teaches, "When an intermediate node receives the reply message, it learns the path information to the destination." Again, we find the use of the term "learns" to suggest updating the table along with the source node receiving "all the path information from itself to the requested destination" to teach and fairly suggest updating the routing table. (§ [ 2]). We further note that the Duggi provisional application teaches AODV which is the same protocol relied upon by the Examiner in the Elizabeth reference. Therefore, we find Appellants' contention that the Duggi reference is not prior art to be unpersuasive. With respect to claims 19-24 and 37, Appellants present similar arguments and rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 19. Appellants further contend that "neither Elizabeth et al. nor Duggi teach or suggest any router that both updates its routing table upon receipt of a service discovery request message from a service requester and also updates its routing table upon receipt of a reply to that service discovery request message sent by a service provider." (App. Br. 15). As discussed above, we find Appellants' argument unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. With respect to claims 25-29, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 19. (App. Br. 15). Because we Appeal 2011-011695 Application 10/580,337 8 found Appellants' arguments unpersuasive with respect to independent claim 19, we similarly find them unpersuasive with respect to claims 25-29. With respect to claims 30-36 and 38, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 19. (App. Br. 16). Because we found Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive with respect to independent claim 19, we similarly find them unpersuasive with respect to claims 30-36 and 38. With respect to dependent claims 37 and 38, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 19. (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 4-5). The Examiner further notes that the Elizabeth reference teaches the destination address of the service provider device is unknown to the service requester at the time the messages sent. (Ans. 11). We agree with the Examiner. Because we found Appellants' arguments unpersuasive with respect to independent claim 19, we similarly find them unpersuasive with respect to claims 37 and 38. With respect to dependent claim 26, Appellants repeat the language of the claim and present similar arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 19, rather than presenting arguments to the express language of claim 26.1 (App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 4). The Examiner further maintains that the Elizabeth reference teaches the request comprises an indicator indicating that the routers should add routing information to the request. (Ans. 7). We agree with the Examiner that some indication would be necessary in the protocol to instruct the intermediate nodes to update their appropriate information. Because we found Appellants' arguments 1 We further note that we find no support in Appellants' originally filed Specification or claims for an "indicator." We leave it to the Examiner to consider this in any further prosecution. Appeal 2011-011695 Application 10/580,337 9 unpersuasive with respect to independent claim 19, we similarly find them unpersuasive with respect to claim 26. (We further note that we find no support in Appellants' originally filed Specification or claims for an "indicator"). We additionally note that Appellants have not identified how the "service discovery request message" differs from the path discovery request message of the Elizabeth reference or the Duggi reference. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 19-38 as unpatentable based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19-38 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 gvw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation