Ex Parte Iyer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 5, 2012

11108560 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JAYARAMAN R. IYER, NAVAN NARANG,
MICHAEL L. SHANNON, and ARGHYA T. MUKHERJEE
________________

Appeal 2010-003876
Application 11/108,560
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER and GLENN J. PERRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003876
Application 11/108,560

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants invoke1 our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection2 of claims 1-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants’ invention provides a virtual private network (“VPN”) by
using a “home agent” to connect a “foreign agent” to a “mobile node.” The
foreign agent, wanting to attach to the mobile node, sends a “registration
request” to the home agent. The home agent determines VPN membership
of the mobile node based on a characteristic associated with the mobile
node. The mobile node is mapped to an identifier associated with the home
agent and this mapping is sent to the foreign agent. Thereafter, when the
foreign agent wants to send packets to the mobile node, it includes with
those packets the identifier associated with the home agent. The home agent
routes those packets bearing the identifier to an IP address associated with
the VPN, effectively joining the foreign agent to the VPN. See generally
Abstract, Summary, claim 1.

Evidence Considered
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Yang U.S. 2004/0120294 A1 Pub. Jun. 24, 2004
Kuzhiyil U.S. 6,973,088 B1 Dec. 6, 2005
Rueda U.S. 2002/0112076 A1 Pub. Aug. 15, 2002

1 Notice of Appeal December 5, 2008
2 Final Office Action mailed August 6, 2008
Appeal 2010-003876
Application 11/108,560

3
The Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-24, and 26-36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang and Kuzhiyil.
App. Br. 13.3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 17, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang, Kuzhiyil and Rueda.

REJECTION #1
Appellants’ arguments are framed with respect to claim 14, which is
illustrative and reproduced below with bracketed designations added for
later referral and with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for providing access to a network by a home agent in a
Mobile IP environment comprising:
[a] providing a home agent operable to receive a registration request
from a foreign agent and negotiate conditions of attachment of a mobile
node to the foreign agent and further operable to store an IP address of the
foreign agent in response to the negotiated conditions;
[b] receiving, at the home agent, from the foreign agent, a registration
request for a mobile node;
[c] determining, by the home agent, a network membership of the
mobile node based on a characteristic associated with the mobile node;
[d] mapping the mobile node to an identifier associated with the home
agent and transmitting the mapping to the foreign agent, the identifier
indicative of the network membership of the mobile node; and
[e] receiving packets containing the identifier from the foreign agent
and in response directing the packets to an IP address associated with the
network.

3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed
April 29, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed October 1,
2009; and (3) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed December 1, 2009.
4 Appeal Brief page 15.
Appeal 2010-003876
Application 11/108,560

4

Examiner Findings
The Examiner maps portions of claim 1 to Yang as follows: The
claimed “foreign agent” corresponds to the Yang foreign agent 32. The
claimed “home agent” corresponds to the Yang home agent 22. Claim
limitation [c] corresponds to the teaching of Yang paragraphs [0031], [0046]
and [0047]. 5
Appellant Contentions
Appellant argues that Yang and Kuzhiyil do not teach limitation [c],
based on the cited portions of Yang referring to actions by the “foreign
agent” and not the “home agent.”6

Discussion
The point of disagreement between Examiner and Appellant is
whether the references teach limitation [c]. We have reviewed Yang, paying
particular attention to paragraphs [0046] and [0047]. These paragraphs
teach us that the foreign agent checks for conflicts with the foreign network
and then forwards a registration request to the home network. We conclude
that these paragraphs refer to actions carried out by the “foreign agent” not
the “home agent,” as suggested by Appellants. App. Br. 16.
The Examiner acknowledges that this is the case (Ans. 12-13), then
finds, based on “well known” common knowledge, that the home network
determines network membership. See Ans. 13. The Examiner may be
correct in that regard, but the record is devoid of evidence to that effect.

5 Final Office Action page 4; Examiner Answer pages 3-4
6 App. Br. 15-18; Reply Br. 2
Appeal 2010-003876
Application 11/108,560

5
Analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 should be made
explicit. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).” We
cannot therefore, based on the record before us, sustain the rejection of claim
1.
Appellants argued independent claims 10, 19, 28 and 36 based only
on their respective limitations that are similar to limitation [c] of claim 1.
Ttherefore we do not sustain the rejections of these claims.
Based on our findings with respect to each of the independent claims,
we do not sustain the rejections of their respective dependent claims 2-7, 9,
11-17, 20-24, 26-27 and 29-35.

REJECTION #2
Although dependent claims 8, 18 and 25 were called out separately in
Appellant’s brief,7 they were not separately argued as to their respective
particular features. Appellants relied upon the arguments made with respect
to claim 1, already dealt with above. We therefore do not sustain the
rejection of these claims.

CONCLUSION(S)
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-36 based on Yang and
Kuzhiyil.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-36 is REVERSED.

7 Appeal Brief 18
Appeal 2010-003876
Application 11/108,560

6
REVERSED