Ex Parte Crago

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2013

11378413 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM BARRY CRAGO
____________________

Appeal 2011-006206
Application 11/378,413
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006206
Application 11/378,413
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-5 and 7-40. Claim 6 is canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method for populating a location
information database used in the delivery of emergency and other location-
based services in a VoIP environment. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of populating a location information database for
use in providing a location-based service to a host device that is
an endpoint of a logical connection between the host device and
a network access server, comprising:
receiving from said host device over said logical
connection a request for network access;
assigning a logical identifier to said host device in
response to said receiving;
determining a physical location associated with said
endpoint of said logical connection;
creating an association between said logical identifier and
said physical location;
storing said association in the location information
database; and
sending said logical identifier to said host device
subsequent to said determining.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Houri US 6,665,715 B1 Dec. 16, 2003
McCalmont
Klausberger
US 2004/0184584 A1
US 2005/0220120 A1
Sep. 23, 2004
Oct. 6, 2005
Appeal 2011-006206
Application 11/378,413
3
Batni US 2006/0147010 A1 Jul. 6, 2006

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-5, 7, 14, 18, 22-24, and 32-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCalmont and Houri. Ans. 3-8.
Claims 8-13, 15-17, 19-21, and 25-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCalmont, Houri, and Klausberger.
Ans. 9-14.
Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCalmont, Houri, Klausberger, and Batni. Ans. 14-15.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION1
“[I]n Houri, it is the trace engine module (not the host) that receives
the IP address from the end user terminal (i.e., the host) in response to
having issued the route identification command.” App. Br. 16 (emphasis
omitted).

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 12-21)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-4), the dispositive issue presented on appeal is
whether the combination of McCalmont and Houri teaches or suggests the
disputed claim limitation of sending a logical identifier to a host device
subsequent to determining a physical location associated with an endpoint of
a logical connection.

1 We note Appellant raises additional contentions of error but we do not
reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-006206
Application 11/378,413
4

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Houri’s trace route command used to determine
geographic location of user terminals is issued only after the terminals have
previously learned their respective IP addresses. App. Br. 15. Consistent with
Houri’s system requiring host devices to already know their IP addresses to
respond to a trace Id command, Houri’s step of “populating database” (fig. 2
element 64) fails to disclose sending an IP address (i.e., logical identifier) to
a host device. Reply Br. 4. We agree with Appellant.
The Examiner finds Houri “teaches the host receiving IP address in
response to the route identification command to obtain the geographical
location.” Ans. 4 citing Houri col. 2, ll. 3-14. The Examiner further finds
Houri’s populate database step is where each host receives its IP address.
Ans. 16. According to the Examiner, “fig. 2 element 64 is interpreted as
‘sending said logical identifier to said host device subsequent to said
determining.’” Id.
We disagree with the Examiner. The cited portion of Houri describes
the tracing engine module receiving IP addresses of all intermediary host
computers, not sending the IP addresses to a host device, e.g., the
intermediary host computers. There is no evidence cited or rationale
provided by the Examiner supporting or explaining why Houri’s step 64 of
populating a database teaches or suggests sending a logical identifier to a
host device subsequent to determining a physical location associated with an
endpoint of the device. Therefore, on the record before us, we will not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 or, for the same reasons, the
rejections of independent claims 36, 38, and 39 or the rejections of
dependent claims 2-5, 7, 14, 18, 22-24, and 32-35, 37, and 40 under 35
Appeal 2011-006206
Application 11/378,413
5
U.S.C. § 103(a) over McCalmont and Houri. Furthermore, we do not sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 8-13, 15-17, 19-21, and 25-29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over McCalmont, Houri, and Klausberger and dependent
claims 30 and 31 over McCalmont, Houri, Klausberger, and Batni, as the
Klausberger and Batni references were not cited to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation.

CONCLUSION
We find the combination of McCalmont and Houri fails to teach or
suggest the disputed claim limitation of sending a logical identifier to a host
device subsequent to determining a physical location associated with an
endpoint of a logical connection and, therefore, the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 and 7-40 is
reversed.

REVERSED

tj