Ex Parte French et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 5, 2010

09930328 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 5, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte STEVEN FRENCH, LORIN EVAN ULLMANN,
and CRISTI NESBITT ULLMANN
____________________

Appeal 2009-005615
Application 09/930,3281
Technology Center 2400

____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and THOMAS S.
HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or 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 2009-005615
Application 09/930,328

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-14, 18-31, and 35-37.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention concerns a distributed data processing system in
which a geographic location identifier is generated for a network endpoint,
and uniquely identifying the endpoint using the endpoint’s MAC address
and the geographic location identifier. Network-related actions can be
performed on resources with common geographic locations, and security
attributes can automatically be associated with the endpoint based on its
current geographic location (Spec. 7-8).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for management of a distributed data processing system, the
method comprising:
determining a unique network hardware identifier for a network
device;
associating the unique network hardware identifier with geographic
location information; and
configuring the network device in accordance with the geographic
location information through a network administrative user interface.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Hougaard US 6,216,130 B1 Apr. 10, 2001
Liming US 2002/0055924 A1 May 9, 2002
Claims 1-14, 18-31, and 35-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liming in view of Hougaard.

3 Claims 15-17, 32-34, and 38-40 have been withdrawn from consideration.
2
Appeal 2009-005615
Application 09/930,328

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed January 14, 2008), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
June 11, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 16, 2008)
for their respective details.

ISSUES
Appellants argue that while Hougaard teaches organizing geographic
data gathered from disparate sources (App. Br. 14), and allows users access
only to specific geographic data rather than all geographic data (App. Br.
15), neither Liming nor Hougaard teaches configuring the network device in
accordance with geographic location information through a network
administrative user interface (App. Br. 12). Further, in response to the
Examiner’s Answer, Appellants argue that Liming does not teach that the
network device itself is altered based on the location of the device (Reply
Br. 2).
With respect to claims 4 and 21, Appellants argue that Liming does
not teach generating a unique name for an endpoint resource on the network
device, said unique name comprising the geographic location information
(App. Br. 18).
Appellants contend that neither Liming nor Hougaard teaches
detecting a change of location of the network device within the distributed
data processing system based on the geographic location information, as
claims 10 and 27 require (App. Br. 20).
With respect to claims 11 and 28, dependent from claims 10 and 27
respectively, Appellants assert that neither reference teaches reconfiguring
the network device based on the detected change of location (App. Br. 21).
3
Appeal 2009-005615
Application 09/930,328

With respect to claims 12 and 29, also dependent from claims 10 and
27, Appellants further assert that neither Liming nor Hougaard teaches
reconfiguring user security parameters based on detected change of location
of the network device (App. Br. 22).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following five issues:
1. Does the combination of Liming and Hougaard teach configuring a
network device, in accordance with geographic location information,
through a network administrative user interface?
2. Does the combination of Liming and Hougaard teach generating a
unique name for an endpoint resource on the network device, wherein the
unique name comprises the geographic location information?
3. Does the combination of Liming and Hougaard teach detecting a
change of location of the network device based on the geographic location
information?
4. Does the combination of Liming and Hougaard teach reconfiguring
the network device based on the detected change of location?
5. Does the combination of Liming and Hougaard teach reconfiguring
user security parameters based on the detected change of location?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Liming
1. Liming teaches that as a device is moved, location context events
stored in an event queue can interact to execute processes or provide
constraints that determine such executions (¶ 0049).
4
Appeal 2009-005615
Application 09/930,328

2. Liming teaches a management information base (MIB) that
includes objects having object IDs (OIDs) (¶¶ 00161-0163; sample OIDs are
illustrated at ¶ 0164). The Examiner finds that OIDs longer than 1.3.6.1.4.1
specify resources within a private enterprise or entity (Ans. 15), and that the
last five OIDs in the table include spatial information (Id.).
3. Liming teaches a client sending position information to a server,
either at regular intervals, or alternatively only when the client detects a
location change (¶ 0091).
4. Liming teaches activating a location-triggered event when the
device is within a certain proximity of a particular location, such as alerting
the user to pick up milk and eggs when the device is detected to be in
proximity to a grocery store (¶ 0113, 0114).
Hougaard
5. Hougaard teaches providing context filters that permit users to
receive only the geographic and other data relevant to them (col. 7, ll. 45-
49).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art
to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
5
Appeal 2009-005615
Application 09/930,328

the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”)

ANALYSIS
CLAIM 1-3, 7-9, 13, 14, 18-20, 24-26, 30, 31, AND 35-37
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, summarized supra.
The Examiner admits that Liming does not explicitly disclose configuring
the network device in accordance with the geographic location information
through a network administrative user interface (Ans. 4, emphasis added),
but applies the teachings of Hougaard to supply the claimed interface (Id.).
Appellants’ Specification does not provide a definition of “configure” that is
in conflict with the Examiner’s finding that providing context filters that
permit users to receive only the geographic and other data relevant to them
(FF H1) meets the claimed “configuration” (Ans. 4).
Appellants further argue that Liming teaches that the device itself is
not altered based on the location of the device, but rather that the location of
the device is merely a condition that is met in order to execute existing
services and programs on the device (Reply Br. 2, citing Liming ¶¶ 0052 and
0110; see also FF 1). We are not persuaded of Examiner error by this
argument, as we regard Appellants’ statement as a distinction without a
difference. We find that “executing existing services and programs on the
6
Appeal 2009-005615
Application 09/930,328

device” based on the device’s location necessarily does alter the device
based on the location of the device. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Liming teaches configuring the network device in accordance
with the geographic location information.
Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1 under § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of
Liming and Hougaard. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims
1-3, 7-9, 13, 14, 18-20, 24-26, 30, 31, and 35-37.
CLAIMS 4-6 AND 21-23
Appellants argue that Liming does not teach generating a unique name
for an endpoint resource on the network device, wherein the unique name
comprises the geographic location information (App. Br. 18). According to
Appellants, Liming teaches storing location information in a database, or in
a cookie, or in a Management Information Base, but does not teach
generating a unique name comprising the location information (App. Br. 18).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds
that Liming teaches a management information base (MIB) that includes
objects having object IDs (OIDs) (FF 2). The Examiner finds, and
Appellants do not rebut, that OIDs longer than 1.3.6.1.4.1 specify resources
within a private enterprise or entity (Ans. 15, FF 2), and that the last five
OIDs in the table include spatial information (Id.). We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that at least these last five OIDs constitute unique names
for an endpoint resource on a network device that comprise geographic
location information.
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 4 and 21, and we will sustain the rejection. Appellants do not present
7
Appeal 2009-005615
Application 09/930,328

separate arguments for the patentability of claims 5, 6, 22, and 23. We will
therefore sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 5, 6, 22, and 23, for the same
reasons expressed with respect to claims 4 and 21.
CLAIMS 10 AND 27
Appellants argue that neither Liming nor Hougaard teaches detecting
a change of location of the network device within the distributed data
processing system based on the geographic location information (App. Br.
20).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding (Ans. 17) that Liming teaches a client sending position information
to a server, either at regular intervals, or alternatively only when the client
detects a location change (FF 3). Because the claims do not require any
particular part of the data processing system to perform the claimed
detection, we agree with the Examiner that Liming’s teaching of a client
detecting a change of its own location meets the language of dependent
claims 10 and 27.
Because Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 10 and 27, we will sustain the § 103 rejection.
CLAIMS 11 AND 28
Appellants argue that neither Liming nor Hougaard teaches
reconfiguring the network device based on the detected change of location of
the network device (App. Br. 21).
We do not agree with Appellants, but rather agree with the
Examiner’s finding (Ans. 18) that Liming teaches activating a location-
triggered event when the device is within a certain proximity of a particular
location, such as alerting the user to pick up milk and eggs when the device
8
Appeal 2009-005615
Application 09/930,328

is detected to be in proximity to a grocery store (FF 4). Appellant does not
establish that such an activity does not correspond to “reconfiguring” of the
network device, as claimed.
Because Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 11 and 28, we will sustain the § 103 rejection.
CLAIMS 12 AND 29
Appellants argue that Hougaard does not teach reconfiguring user
security parameters based on the detected change of location of the network
device (App. Br. 22). Appellants further argue that in Hougaard, the actual
location of the user is not known or determined (Id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. As noted supra in the
discussion of claim 11, Liming (rather than Hougaard) is relied upon to
teach reconfiguring a network device based on detected change of location.
Appellants do not contest that Liming teaches conditionally performing an
action based on the change of location of the device. The Examiner relies on
Hougaard to teach a security mechanism for allowing only authorized users
to access data, as well as only providing access to data that is relevant at the
time a request is made (Ans. 18; FF 5). We agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested reconfiguring security parameters based on a detected change of
location (Ans. 18-19).
Because Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 12 and 29 under § 103, we will sustain the rejection.
9
Appeal 2009-005615
Application 09/930,328

CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Liming and Hougaard teaches configuring a
network device, in accordance with geographic location information,
through a network administrative user interface.
2. The combination of Liming and Hougaard teaches generating a
unique name for an endpoint resource on the network device, wherein the
unique name comprises the geographic location information.
3. The combination of Liming and Hougaard teaches detecting a
change of location of the network device based on the geographic location
information.
4. The combination of Liming and Hougaard teaches reconfiguring
the network device based on the detected change of location.
5. The combination of Liming and Hougaard teaches reconfiguring
user security parameters based on the detected change of location.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14, 18-31, and 35-37 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).

10
Appeal 2009-005615
Application 09/930,328

AFFIRMED

ELD

IBM CORP (YA)
C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
11