Ex Parte Gundavelli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2017

13568789 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2017)

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.
13/568,789 08/07/2012 Srinath GUNDAVELLI 111244.307US1 5478
978160US.01
86421 7590 07/28/2017
Patent Capital Group - Cisco
Attention: Roseanne Cisneros de Chairez
2609 Dove Meadow Drive
Garland, TX 75043
EXAMINER
MAK, PETER K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
peggsu @ cisco, com
PAIR_86421 @patcapgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRINATH GUNDAVELLI, MARK GRAYSON,
and SANJAY KUMAR
Appeal 2017-004727
Application 13/568,789
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—8, 11—15, and 17—26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-004727
Application 13/568,789
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a packet at a mobile access gateway from a UE
operating in a trusted wireless local area network (LAN), the
packet having a source IP address;
determining, at the mobile access gateway, an access point
name (APN) associated with the received packet based on a type
of user application sending the packet to the mobile access
gateway, wherein the user application runs on the UE;
analyzing a binding update list (BUL) table maintained by
the mobile access gateway to identity an IP address of the UE
used by the determined APN;
modifying the source IP address of the received packet to
be the IP address of the UE used by the determined APN; and
transmitting the packet to a home network associated with
the APN with the modified source IP address.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, and
21—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination
of Damle (US 8,599,790 Bl; issued Dec. 3, 2013), Samaik
(US 8,432,871 Bl; issued Apr. 30, 2013), and Ulupinar
(US 2008/0159227 Al; published July 3, 2008).1
1 The patentability of independent claims 11 and 17 is not separately argued
from that of independent claim 1. See App. Br. 7. Further, the patentability
of claims 2—8, 12—15, 18—23, and 25—26 is not separately argued from that
of independent claims 1,11, and 17. See id. Thus, except for our ultimate
decision, claims 2—8, 11—15, 17—23, and 25—26 are not discussed further
herein.
2
Appeal 2017-004727
Application 13/568,789
2. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 13, 14, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Damle,
Samaik, Ulupinar, and Qiang (US 2010/0322106 Al; published Dec. 23,
2010).
3 The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Damle,
Samaik, Ulupinar, and Gupta (US 2014/0101726 Al; published Apr. 10,
2014).
Appellants ’ Contentions
1 Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Various portions of the Final Office Action appear to
rely on the same IP address as teaching both the “source IP
address of the received packet ” and the “IP address of the UE
used by the determined APN” of Applicant's Claim 1. With
respect to the “source IP address of the received packet” of Claim
1, the Final Office Action . . . cites Damle, column 4, lines 64-
65. This address of Damle refers to an “an assigned address” that
is mapped to a “local mobility anchor (LMA) identifier.” . . .
With respect to the “IP address of the UE used by the determined
APN” of Claim 1, . . . the Final Office Action refers to FIG. 12
of Damle.. . . However, this assigned home address of FIG. 12
of Damle relied on as teaching the “IP address of the UE used by
the determined APN” ... is the same address relied on as
teaching the “source IP address of the received packet” of Claim
1 (i.e., the “assigned address” mapped to “a local mobility anchor
identifier” of Damle, column 4, lines 64-65 . . .). Accordingly,
the proposed combination necessarily fails to disclose
“modifying the source IP address of the received packet to be the
IP address of the UE used by the determined APN” because it
relies on the same address to teach both of the claimed IP
addresses.
3
Appeal 2017-004727
Application 13/568,789
Other portions of the Final Office Action appear to rely
on a different address (i.e., the address of Damle's MAG) as
teaching the “IP address of the UE used by the determined
APN.” However, the IP address of Damle's MAG is not the
same as the home address assigned to the wireless terminal
relied on in other portions of the rejection as disclosing the
claimed “IP address of the UE used by the determined APN” and
thus the rejection is improper for inconsistently mapping the
same claim limitation to disparate elements of Damle.
Moreover, if the IP address of Damle's MAG were to be mapped
to the “IP address of the UE used by the determined APN”
(which Applicant does not admit is proper), then the proposed
combination fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least
“analyzing a binding update list (BUL) table maintained by the
mobile access gateway to identify an IP address of the UE used
by the determined APN” of Claim 1, as the cited portions fail to
disclose the table of FIG. 12 of Damle being accessed to identify
the IP address of the MAG that would allegedly be used as a
source address to tunnel packets to the LMA. Rather it appears
that the table of FIG. 12 of Damle is accessed to identify an
address of an LMA rather than an “IP address of the UE used
by the determined APN” as recited in Claim 1.
Additionally, the proposed combination of Sarnaik with
Damle is improper because it would change the principle of
operation of Damle. As described in . . . Damle, the MAG of
Damle maps home addresses assigned to a wireless terminal to
local mobility anchors (where each address assigned to the
wireless terminal corresponds to a distinct APN) and then uses a
source address (which would be one of the addresses assigned to
the wireless terminal) of a packet from the wireless terminal to
select a local mobility anchor based on the mapping. To instead
use the mechanism of Sarnaik in Damle to “determin[e], at the
mobile access gateway, an access point name (APN) associated
with the received packet based on a type of user application
sending the packet to the mobile access gateway, wherein the
user application runs on the UE” would materially change the
principle of operation of Damle by omitting the selection of the
4
Appeal 2017-004727
Application 13/568,789
APN based on the source address of a packet, and would negate
the need for the tables shown in Figures 11 and 12 which are
relied on to disclose the “binding update list (BUL) table”
recited in Claim 1.
App. Br. 5—7, Appellants’ emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s emphasis
added; see also Reply Br. 3^42.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The Examiner's Answer clarifies that the rejection relies on “the
address assigned to the attached wireless terminal in the table of
Fig. 12 ... as teaching ‘the IP address of the UE’ used by the
determined APN.” ... There are two problems with this reliance
that render the rejection improper (either of which is sufficient
to render the rejection improper).
First, the cited portions of Damle fail to teach that the table
of Fig. 12 is analyzed “to identity” the address assigned to the
attached wireless terminal (whereas Claim 1 recites “analyzing
a binding update list (BUL) table maintained by the mobile
access gateway to identity an IP address of the UE used by the
determined APN”). Rather it appears that the table of FIG. 12 of
Damle is accessed to identify an address of a Local Mobility
Anchor (LMA)[.]
Second, the combination fails to teach modifying the
source IP address of a received packet to be the “address
assigned to the attached wireless terminal in the table of Fig.
12” (whereas Claim 1 recites “modifying the source IP address
of the received packet to be the IP address of the UE used by
the determined APN”). Rather, the modification relied on by the
Examiner is the alleged teaching that the “gateway modifies the
source address of the received packet to be the address of the
gateway by encapsulating the original packet with the outer eBS
IP address”. However, the address of the gateway is not the
2 Appellants’ Reply Brief is unnumbered.
5
Appeal 2017-004727
Application 13/568,789
same as the “address assigned to the attached wireless terminal
in the table of Fig. 12. ”
Reply. Br. 2—3, Appellants’ emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s
emphasis added.
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
However, the cited portions of Damle fail to disclose a
“BUL table maintained by the mobile access gateway” that
“maps multiple different APN-specific IP addresses to the
source IP address of the packet received from the UE, wherein
each APN-specific IP address specifies a different IP address of
the UE used by a particular APN” as recited in Claim 24. Rather,
FIG. 12 discloses a single LMA address “Address 1” in the
entry corresponding to Terminal Address “Prefix 1” and a
single LMA address “Address 2” in the entry corresponding to
Terminal Address “Prefix 2”, but fails to disclose multiple
LMA addresses mapped to a particular Terminal Address.
Moreover, an LMA address of Damle is not an “APN-specific
IP address” that “specifies a different IP address of the UE
used by a particular APN” as recited by Claim 24.
App. Br. 8, Appellants’ emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s emphasis
added; see also Reply Br. 4.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 24 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is
6
Appeal 2017-004727
Application 13/568,789
taken (Final Act. 2—27); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—10) in response to the Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following.
As to Appellants’ above contentions 1 and 2, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred.3 As correctly found by the Examiner, and contrary to
Appellants’ argument that Damle fails to teach or suggest analyzing a
binding table to identify an IP address of a UE, Damle does teach a media
access gateway (MAG) accessing a binding table to identify a home address
(e.g., address prefix) assigned to an attached wireless terminal, as well as an
address of a corresponding local mobility anchor (LMA), where the home
address is subsequently utilized as a source address of a packet that is
received by the MAG and that is sent to the LMA. See Ans. 6 (citing Damle
13:57 —14:9); see also Damle 14:10—15.
Further, Appellants’ argument that the combination of cited references
fails to teach or suggest modifying a source IP address of a received packet
to be an IP address of a UE used by a determined access point name (APN)
is also not persuasive because the argument does not address the Examiner’s
combination of references. More specifically, the Examiner relied upon
Damle to teach a MAG receiving a packet from a wireless terminal,
accessing a binding table to identify a home address assigned to the wireless
3 We do not reach Appellants’ argument that the rejection is improper for
inconsistently mapping the same claim limitation to disparate elements of
Damle, as Appellants concede the Examiner’s Answer clarifies that the
rejection relies on “the address assigned to the attached wireless terminal in
the table of Fig. 12 ... as teaching ‘the IP address of the UE’ used by the
determined APN.” See Reply Br. 2.
7
Appeal 2017-004727
Application 13/568,789
terminal, encapsulating the packet, and sending the encapsulated packet to a
LMA, and further relied upon Ulupinar to teach that encapsulating a packet
involves modifying the source address of the original packet. See Final
Act. 5—7; see also Damle 13:57 —14:9; see also Ulupinar || 55—61. It is well
established that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). As
Appellants’ argument does not address the actual reasoning of the
Examiner’s rejection, we do not find it persuasive.
Appellants’ argument that the proposed combination of Samaik with
Damle is improper because it would change the principle of operation of
Damle is also not persuasive. Contrary to Appellants’ restrictive principle of
operation, we conclude that the principle of operation of Damle is
establishing tunnels with multiple LMAs associated with multiple packet
data networks (PDNs). See, e.g., Damle at Abstract. We conclude there is
no reasonable basis for Appellants’ assertion that combining Samaik with
Damle would fundamentally change Damle’s principle of operation. Rather,
we find Appellants’ assertion to be conclusory. Such attorney argument is
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim
1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As to Appellants’ above contention 2, we are also not persuaded the
Examiner erred. As correctly found by the Examiner, and contrary to
Appellants’ argument that Damle fails to teach or suggest an APN-specific
8
Appeal 2017-004727
Application 13/568,789
IP address that specifies a different IP address of a UE used by a particular
APN, Damle does teach a table that stores multiple APN-specific home
addresses (e.g., address prefixes), where each APN-specific home address
specifies an IP address of the wireless terminal used by the particular APN.
See Ans. 9 (citing Damle 12:15—20); see also Damle 13:57 — 14:15. Thus,
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 24. Therefore, we also sustain
the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1—8, 11—15, and
17—26 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1—8, 11—15, and 17—26 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8, 11—15, and 17—26
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9