Ex Parte Garcia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

13225201 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

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.
13/225,201 09/02/2011 Roberto Garcia JR. APL-P11166US1 1060
63975 7590 08/12/2016
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
POLLACK, MELVIN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERTO GARCIA JR., YAN YANG,
JUSTIN MCLEOD NORTH WOOD, JOSE S. ABUAN,
and HYEONKUK JEONG
____________

Appeal 2015-002251
Application 13/225,201
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4‒7, and 21‒35, which are all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple, Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-002251
Application 13/225,201

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to establishing a network connection
between two devices based on a preferred metric. Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium having
executable instructions to cause one or more processing units to
perform a method of suggesting a connection pair between a first
and second device to an application based on a metric received
from the application, the method comprising:
receiving, from the application, the metric indicating a
preference to be used in selecting one of a plurality of connection
pairs between the first and second devices;
receiving characteristics of the plurality of connection
pairs, each connection pair comprising a network connection
with a different combination of a network interface of the first
device and a network interface of the second device;
selecting the one of the plurality of connection pairs based
on the characteristics and the metric; and suggesting the one of
the plurality of connection pairs to the application.

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1, 4‒7, and 21‒35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Raleigh (US 2012/0297055 A9; Nov. 22, 2012) and
Helmy (US 8,432,799 B1; Apr. 30, 2013). Final Act. 3‒6.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
Appeal 2015-002251
Application 13/225,201

3
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Raleigh and Helmy because Helmy does not teach or
suggest “each connection pair comprising a network connection with a
different combination of a network interface of the first device and a
network interface of the second device.” Br. 8‒10. In particular, Appellants
argue Helmy teaches two proxy devices that exchange data, but only one of
the proxy devices has an interface as claimed. Id. at 9. Appellants argue the
second proxy device is described with terms such as “socket queue threads,”
“handling a connection port reset,” “status check thread,” and a “proxy
protocol,” but does not explicitly recite an “interface.” Id. at 10.
Appellants argue Helmy does not teach an interface for both proxy
devices because Helmy does not explicitly state that the second proxy device
uses an interface. The doctrine of obviousness does not require identity of
language. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978) (An ipsissimis
verbis test is not required). Rather, the obviousness inquiry is directed to
whether the cited references would teach or suggest the claimed subject
matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Accordingly, at issue in this case is
whether Helmy would teach or suggest to an ordinarily-skilled artisan a
network connection that involves “a network interface” at a first device and
Appeal 2015-002251
Application 13/225,201

4
“a network interface” at a second device, even though the exact claim
language is not used in the reference.
As a matter of claim construction, we apply the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim terms, consistent with the specification, as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
The Examiner interprets “interface” to mean “the connection between
two systems through which information is exchanged.” Ans. 5. We agree
with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “interface”
in light of the Specification includes at least a connection between two
systems through which information is exchanged. Applying this
construction, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Helmy teaches two
terminal devices that communicate through two respective proxy devices.
Ans. 6 (citing Helmy 3:50‒4:5, 4:20‒40). The Examiner finds the two proxy
devices contain interfaces that allow them to communicate. Ans. 6. The
Examiner further finds that Helmy’s user devices also have interfaces that
allow communication. Id. Appellants have not identified persuasive
evidence in the record before us that the Examiner erred in these findings.
Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and sustain the rejection of
claim 1, which is representative of claims 23 and 30, as well. See Br. 10; 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Raleigh and Helmy. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
Appeal 2015-002251
Application 13/225,201

5
claim 1. We also sustain the rejections of grouped independent claims 23
and 30, and dependent claims 4‒7, 21, 22, 24‒29, and 31‒35, which
Appellants have not argued separately. Br. 10.

DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4‒7, and
21‒35.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED