Ex Parte Christenson

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2014

11874264 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID ALAN CHRISTENSON
____________

Appeal 2012-001416
Application 11/874,264
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-001416
Application 11/874,264

2
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of maintaining IP address configuration of a
network connection, comprising the steps of:
transmitting an IP address configuration communication
from a first adapter in a host coupled to a network, said IP
address configuration communication being intended for a
device on said network other than said host;
receiving said IP address configuration communication in
a second adapter in said host coupled to said network;
responsive to receiving said IP address configuration
communication in said second adapter, automatically
determining that said first and second adapters are coupled
to the same network; and
responsive to automatically determining that said first
and second adapters are coupled to the same network,
automatically performing at least one configuration step for
configuring an IP address associated with at least one of said
first and second adapters.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by
Enstone (US 2007/0025253 A1; pub. Feb. 1, 2007).
2. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7–9, 11, and 13–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Enstone and Pullen (US 2005/0044196 A1; pub. Feb.
24, 2005).

Appeal 2012-001416
Application 11/874,264

3
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 because Enstone does not
teach transmitting an IP address configuration communication from a first
adapter in a host coupled to a network, and receiving the IP address
configuration communication in a second adapter in said host coupled to the
network?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 6 because Enstone does not
disclose responsive to automatically determining that a plurality of network
adapters are coupled to a common network, automatically configuring a
virtual IP address of a network connection formed by a plurality of network
adapters?

ANALYSIS
Anticipation
The Appellant argues that because Enstone does not teach
transmitting an IP address configuration communication from a first adapter
in a host coupled to a network, and receiving the IP address configuration
communication in a second adapter in said host coupled to the network. We
agree.
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 5, 6, 9, and 53 for teaching this
subject matter. We find nothing in these paragraphs teaching that a first
adapter transmits an IP address configuration. We find that paragraphs 5
and 6 disclose that network devices can be coupled to one or more physical
networks through one or more adaptor ports each of which is identified by a
unique MAC address and IP address respectively. Multiple adapter ports
may be coupled to one network to improve reliability so that if one of the
Appeal 2012-001416
Application 11/874,264

4
adaptor ports fails, the other adapter port may be used. We find that
paragraph 9 discloses that one of the adaptor ports is configured to be the
active port and another of the adaptor ports is configured to be a standby
adaptor port so that if a fail is detected, the standby adaptor port is made
active and the originally active port is made inactive. Paragraph 53 discloses
that a teaming driver 310 achieves the substitution by intercepting a client
response prior to transmission, and substituting the MAC address
substituting the MAC address of the substitute adaptor port for the original
adaptor port. There is no disclosure in these portions of Enstone of a first
adaptor transmitting an IP address configuration.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 and claim 4 dependent thereon. We will also not sustain the
rejection as it is directed to claim 12 because claim 12 contains the same
subject matter regarding transmission from a first adaptor.
We will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 and claim
10 dependent thereon because we agree with the Appellant that Enstone does
not disclose responsive to automatically determining that a plurality of
network adapters are coupled to a common network, automatically
configuring a virtual IP address of a network connection formed by a
plurality of network adapters.
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 3, 5, 9, and 33. We find that
paragraph 3 discloses generally that computers use adaptors to communicate
over a network and that these adaptors typically have one port through
which a physical link may be provided. Paragraph 33 refers to Figure 1 and
discloses that multiple adaptor ports N1-N4 are connected to respective slots
S1-S4 through a bus 102. Although as found above, paragraphs 5 and 6
Appeal 2012-001416
Application 11/874,264

5
disclose that network devices can be coupled to one or more physical
networks through one or more adaptor ports so that if one of the adaptor
ports fails the other adapter port may be used, there is no disclosure that a
virtual IP address is configured responsive to a determination that a plurality
of adaptors is connect to a common network. Rather, in Enstone, the
configuration of the adaptors is changed in response to a fail of the active
adaptor not in response to the determination that a plurality of adaptors are
coupled to a common network.
We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 20,
because claim 20 contains subject matter similar to claim 6 by requiring that
in response to detecting that at least two adapters are coupled to a common
network automatically configuring a virtual IP address.

Obviousness
We will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection because the
Examiner relies on Enstone for teaching the same subject matter for this
rejection as in the anticipation rejection.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh