10152281 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2010)

Ex Parte Crichton et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 27, 2010

10152281 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 10/152,281 05/20/2002 Joseph M. Crichton FIS9-2002-0025 6690 7590 09/27/2010 Whitham, Curtis & Christofferson, P.C. 11491 Sunset Hills Road - #340 Reston, VA 20190 EXAMINER TRUONG, LAN DAI T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2452 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JOSEPH M. CRITCHTON, SCHUMAN MIN SHAO and JEFFREY W. STATEN ____________ Appeal 2009-005119 Application 10/152,281 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-005119 Application 10/152,281 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18. Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a packet switched network communication system that has multiple networks and provides a secure tunneling infrastructure between a client and a server. See Spec. 5. Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows: 1. A packet switched network communications system comprising: a first network including a client running at least one client application; a second network including a server supporting a plurality of resources; and a direct, port forwarding function implemented on the client for a tunnel operation in which a secure connection is made to the server. The Rejections Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crichton (US 6,104,716; Aug. 15, 200) and Nakajima (U.S. 6,892,240 B1; May 10, 2005). Answer 3-7. Claims 6, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crichton, Nakajima and del Val (U.S. 6,128,653; Oct. 3, 2000). Answer 7-8. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crichton, Nakajima, del Val and Acharya (U.S. 6,829,709 B1; Dec. 7, 2004). Answer 8-9. Appeal 2009-005119 Application 10/152,281 3 Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crichton, Nakajima, and Whiting (U.S. 6,456,626 B1; Sep. 24, 2002). Answer 9-10. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crichton, Nakajima, and Wood (U.S. 6,668,322 B1; Dec. 23, 2003). Answer 10-11. ISSUE Is the recited invention patentable over the cited references? PRINCIPLES OF LAW The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner can satisfy this test by showing some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). Although giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation must take into account any definitions given in the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), it is improper to read into the claims limitations from examples given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Appeal 2009-005119 Application 10/152,281 4 ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness and instead has relied upon hindsight to piece the cited references together. See Appeal Brief 28. Further, Appellants argues that several limitations recited in the claims are not disclosed by the cited references. See Appeal Brief 28-36. We do not find the Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s analysis (Answer 11-15) and adopt the Examiner’s findings (Answer 3-11) as our own. In particular, we find that Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims as the Examiner has pointed out within his analysis. See Answer 11-15. Further, the Examiner indicates that, even if the disputed features were recited in the claims, those limitations are disclosed within the references. See id. Therefore we will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-18. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-18. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). ORDER AFFIRMED Appeal 2009-005119 Application 10/152,281 5 KIS Whitham, Curtis & Christofferson, P.C. 11491 Sunset Hills Road - #340 Reston, VA 20190