11508660 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

Ex Parte Jamieson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 2016

11508660 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 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. 11/508,660 08/23/2006 Dwight Jamieson 1565-5U (909514-US-NP) 4110 14862 7590 06/30/2016 Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. 200 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2040 Fort Lauderdale, EL 33301 EXAMINER MIRZA, ADNAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2443 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2016 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): ptomail @ c wiplaw. com pair_avaya@ firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DWIGHT JAMIESON, MICHAEL AALDERS, and PATRIK LAHTI Appeal 2014-007650 Application 11/508,660 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner Finally Rejecting claims 1—26, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2014-007650 Application 11/508,660 The present invention relates generally to “communication networks, and more particularly to a method, system, and apparatus that provides for aggregating multiple site-specific routes within an addressing architecture.” Spec. 13. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for aggregating multiple site-specific routes, the method comprising: determining a first aggregate-aware route at a first service provider, the first aggregate-aware route including a prefix of a site-specific address, a prefix length of the site-specific address and a prefix length of an aggregate route address of the first service provider. Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1—261 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Krishnamurthy et al (US 6,928,485 Bl, Aug. 9, 2005). ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that Krishnamurthy describes the claimed method “for aggregating multiple site- specific routes” by “determining a first aggregate-aware route at a first 1 The statement of rejection in the Final Rejection, as well as a statement of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer, state only that claims 1—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Krishnamurthy. Final Act. 2, Ans. 3. However, in the body of the Final Rejection, claim 26 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Krishnamurthy. Final Act. 4. 2 Appeal 2014-007650 Application 11/508,660 service provider, the first aggregate-aware route including a prefix of a site- specific address, a prefix length of the site-specific address and a prefix length of an aggregate route address of the first service provider” (see claim 1). Here, the Examiner finds Krishnamurthy’s numerical value represented as an IP address describes a prefix length of the site-specific address (see Ans. 5—6). The Examiner further finds Krishnamurthy’s client IP address common numerical describes a prefix for the service provider and describes the claimed “prefix length of the aggregate route address of the first service provider” (see id. at 4—5). We disagree with this interpretation. As identified by Appellants, the claimed invention requires “the first aggregate-aware route includes three elements: one address prefix and two prefix lengths” (App. Br. 7), while “none of Krishnamurthy’s entries includes three elements” and rather Krishnamurthy describes a prefix and a netmask length but does not suggest or imply the claimed “prefix length of an aggregate route address of the first service provider” (App. Br. 9). Specifically, Krishnamurthy describes: the method includes the steps of generating a unified prefix/netmask table from a plurality of extracted prefix/netmask entries, extracting a plurality of client IP addresses from the at least one network log, comparing each of the plurality of client IP addresses with entries in the unified/prefix netmask table to determine a common longest matching prefix between each of the plurality of client IP addresses and the entries in the unified/prefix netmask table and grouping all of the client IP addresses which share the common longest matching prefix into at least one client cluster. Each client within a client cluster will share a common network address prefix from the unified routing table with the other clients in the same client cluster. Krishnamurthy col. 2,11. 8—22 (emphasis added). 3 Appeal 2014-007650 Application 11/508,660 The unified routing information table, preferably includes routing information from one or more routing tables, such as network routing prefix and netmask information ... a netmask is a series of bits designed to “mask” or conceal certain portions of an IP address. Krishnamurthy col. 3,11. 48—51 (emphasis added). another exemplary network prefix/netmask entry format 240 may also be configured as xl.x2.x3.x4/l as in routing tables at ARIN, AT&T, CANET, NLANR and VBNS, where xl.x2.x3.x4 is the prefix and 1 is the netmask length. For example, 128.148.0.0/16 stands for 128.148.0.0/255.255.0.0, where 128.148.0.0 and 255.255.0.0 are network prefix and netmask. Krishnamurthy col. 4,11. 53—59 (emphasis added). In other words, Krishnamurthy describes a client cluster with common network address prefix as well as netmask information for concealed portions of IP addresses which includes a netmask length. However, the Examiner has not shown where Krishnamurthy teaches both a prefix length of the site-specific address and a prefix length of an aggregate route address of the first service provider, as required by claim 1. Contrary to the claimed aggregate-aware route including a prefix of a site-specific address, and two prefix lengths, one for the site-specific address and one for the aggregate route address, Krishnamurthy merely describes a shared prefix for common network addresses and a netmask written in the format of netmask length. At best, we find that Krishnamurthy describes a prefix of a site-specific address and a prefix length of the site-specific address, but fails to describe a prefix length of the aggregate route address. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Krishnamurthy’s prefix and netmask length describe the claimed “the first aggregate-aware route including a prefix of a site-specific address, a prefix length of the site- 4 Appeal 2014-007650 Application 11/508,660 specific address and a prefix length of an aggregate route address of the first service provider,” as recited in independent claim 1 with commensurate limitations in each of the remaining independent claims. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1—26. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—26 is reversed. REVERSED 5