Ex Parte Fee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2014

11295879 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JOHN A. FEE1
________________

Appeal 2011-011508
Application 11/295,879
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1–34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART and enter a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

1 Verizon Communications Inc. and its subsidiary companies are the Real
Parties in Interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2011-011508
Application 11/295,879

2

Invention
Appellant invented a
[s]ystem and method for providing service-agnostic network
resources . . . . An embodiment receives an indication that a user is
requesting services at a new location, retrieves an access profile,
which includes service parameters for services to which the user
subscribes, and causes the access network and the programmable
network to be reconfigured to provide to the user’s services at the new
location.
Abstr.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 10, reproduced below with key limitations
emphasized, are representative:
1. A method for providing a service-agnostic network
resource for communications supporting a plurality of forms of
transport, the method comprising:
receiving an indication that a user is coupled to a point of
access to the service-agnostic network resource and is
requesting a set of transport services corresponding to one or
more of the different forms of transport;
retrieving an access profile associated with the user, the
access profile including service parameters for transport
services to be made available to the user; and
causing an access network and a programmable network
to be configured to provide the set of transport services at the
point of access in accordance with the access profile.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the user requests
transport services via a first terminal device upon moving the
terminal device to a new location from a previous location and
wherein the service-agnostic network resource automatically,
based upon identification of the terminal device or
identification of the user, establishes the same set of transport
services at the new location as were provided at the previous
location.
Appeal 2011-011508
Application 11/295,879

3
10. The method of claim 1 wherein the service-agnostic
network resource automatically, based upon identification of
the terminal device or identification of the user, establishes
virtual private network connectivity at the new location as was
provided at the previous location.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7, 9–14, 16–21, 23, and 25–34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doshi (US 2005/
0195741 A1, pub. Sep. 8, 2005) and Gourraud (US 2002/0154755 A1, pub.
Oct. 24, 2002). Ans. 4–11.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 8, 15, 22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Doshi, Gourraud, and Wang (US 2005/
0053064 A1, pub. Mar. 10, 2005). Ans. 11–13.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Doshi and
Gourraud teaches or suggests: (1) “the access profile including service
parameters for transport services to be made available to the user” and (2)
“causing an access network and a programmable network to be configured to
provide the set of transport services at the point of access in accordance with
the access profile,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Doshi,
Gourraud, and Wang teaches or suggests “upon moving the terminal device
to a new location from a previous location . . . the service-agnostic network
resource automatically . . . establishes the same set of transport services at
the new location as were provided at the previous location,” as recited in
claim 8?
Appeal 2011-011508
Application 11/295,879

4
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Doshi and
Gourraud teaches or suggests “wherein the service-agnostic network
resource automatically, based upon identification of the terminal device or
identification of the user, establishes virtual private network connectivity at
the new location as was provided at the previous location,” as recited in
claim 10?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5, 7, 9, 11–14, 16–21, 23, 25, and 27–34
The Examiner finds Doshi teaches or suggests accessing a profile that
includes service parameters for transport services to be made available to the
user and configuring an access network and programmable network to
provide such services, in accordance with the profile. Ans. 4–5 (citing
Doshi ¶¶ 0052, 0053, and 0144). The Examiner further relies on Gourraud
to teach or suggest such a profile being associated with the user. Ans. 5
(citing Gourraud, ¶¶ 0014, 0031, and 0035).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Gourraud’s user
profile database does not include “service parameters for transport
services to be made available to a user.” App. Br. 7. Appellant further
contends Gourraud does not teach “that an access network and a
programmable network are caused to be configured to provide the set of
transport services at a point of access in accordance with the user profile
database.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments unpersuasively attack Gourraud individually
without persuasively showing error in the Examiner’s reliance on the
combined teachings and suggestions of Doshi and Gourraud. Appellant
submits the Examiner “acknowledges that Doshi et al. fails to disclose the
Appeal 2011-011508
Application 11/295,879

5
above features.” Id. at 6. Appellant’s assertion notwithstanding, the
Examiner finds Doshi teaches or suggests the disputed recitations (i.e., an
access profile and the use thereof). Ans. 4–5, 16; Fin. Rej. 3. The Examiner
merely relies on Gourraud for the narrow teaching or suggestion of
associating a profile with a user. Ans. 5; Fin. Rej. 3. The Examiner’s
findings are supported by Gourraud’s use of a user profile database 216. See
Ans. 14–15 (citing, e.g., Gourraud ¶¶ 0031 and 0035). Appellant does not
persuasively show error in the Examiner’s findings. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner, the combination of Doshi and Gourraud teaches or
suggests: (1) “the access profile including service parameters for transport
services to be made available to the user” and (2) “causing an access
network and a programmable network to be configured to provide the set of
transport services at the point of access in accordance with the access
profile,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and of claims 2–5, 7, 9, 11–14, 16–21, 23, 25, and 27–34, which
Appellant does not argue separately. App. Br. 9–10.
Claims 6, 8, 15, 22, and 24
The Examiner correctly finds Wang teaches or suggests reconfiguring
a port assigned to a customer “when a network access device changes [from]
a frame relay network location to an Ethernet network.” Ans. 12 (citing
Wang ¶ 0012). The Examiner finds Wang’s reconfiguring teaches or
suggests automatically establishing the same set of transport services
provided at a previous location when a terminal device moves from a
previous location to a new location. Ans. 12 and 24.
Appeal 2011-011508
Application 11/295,879

6
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Wang merely
reconfigures “a port assigned to a customer when a subscriber changes its
internal network configuration.” App. Br. 11. However, Appellant does not
persuasively distinguish between a subscriber that changes its internal
network location (e.g., “to migrate from Frame Relay to Ethernet” (see
Wang ¶ 0012)) and moving a terminal device to a new location, as claimed.
A reconfigured network is a new location for the terminal device, given a
broad but reasonable interpretation of location as including a network
location. A terminal that was previously part of, and thus at, an old network
has a new location when the network is reconfigured such that it becomes a
new network.
Wang causes traffic from a port assigned to a customer to be sent to a
new service mapper when the user’s network location changes due to an
internal network configuration, thus establishing the same set of transport
services at the new location, as claimed. Wang ¶ 0012. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner the combination of Doshi, Gourraud, and Wang teaches
or suggests “upon moving the terminal device to a new location from a
previous location . . . the service-agnostic network resource automatically
. . . establishes the same set of transport services at the new location as were
provided at the previous location,” as recited in claim 8. Ans. 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 8, and claims 6, 15, 22, and 24, which Appellant does not argue
separately. App. Br. 11.
Claims 10 and 26
The Examiner finds Doshi establishes a virtual private network (VPN)
based on a source and destination address. Ans. 7 (citing Doshi ¶¶ 0046,
Appeal 2011-011508
Application 11/295,879

7
0107, and 0188); see also Ans. 19–21 (further citing Doshi ¶ 0045).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Doshi fails “to disclose or
render obvious establishing virtual private network connectivity at a new
location as was provided at a previous location.” App. Br. 8 (emphasis
added). The Examiner’s findings do not show that Doshi, even in
combination with Gourraud, teaches or suggests new and previous locations
as recited in claims 10 and 26. Therefore, we agree with Appellant the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Doshi and Gourraud teaches or
suggests “wherein the service-agnostic network resource automatically,
based upon identification of the terminal device or identification of the user,
establishes virtual private network connectivity at the new location as was
provided at the previous location,” as recited in claim 10. Id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 10, and claim 26, which has similar recitations.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
We enter the following new ground of rejection pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). We reject claims 10 and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as
the invention.
Specifically, claim 10 recites establishing “virtual private network
connectivity at the new location as was provided at the previous location”
(emphasis added). However, the new and previous locations of claim 10
lack antecedent bases, either in claim 10 or in claim 1, from which claim 10
depends. The lack of antecedent bases renders the meaning of the new and
previous locations unclear. Unlike claim 8, where the new and previous
Appeal 2011-011508
Application 11/295,879

8
locations refer to locations of the terminal device, the locations of claim 10
could refer to locations of something else (e.g., the network resource or the
user). Therefore, the new and previous location recitations in claim 10 are
ambiguous, rendering claim 10 indefinite.
Accordingly, we newly reject claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Claim 26 is indefinite for similar reasons (i.e., no antecedent
bases for the new and previous locations in claim 26 or parent claim 17).
Therefore, the new and previous location recitations in claim 26 are
ambiguous, rendering claim 26 indefinite.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11–25, and
27–34.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10 and 26.
We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION of claims 10 and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of proceedings (37 C.F.R. § 1.197 (b)) as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to
the examiner. . . .
Appeal 2011-011508
Application 11/295,879

9
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

mls