Ex Parte Martin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2010

10657942 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD MARTIN and YONG KIM
_____________

Appeal 2009-003871
Application 10/657,942
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: April 29, 2010
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF,
and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-003871
Application 10/657,942

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 to 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will sustain the rejection.
Appellants’ invention is concerned with a hybrid wired/wireless local
area network and particularly a method and communications system (see
Figs. 10, 11; Spec. ¶¶ [81]-[92]) for hardware acceleration that creates and
distributes a policy to a plurality of access points arranged in access point
groups (see Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ [20]-[24]). Appellants claim and disclose a
hardware acceleration method, system, and machine executable code for (i)
creating a policy for distribution to at least one access point group, (ii)
associating that policy with a particular one of the access point groups, and
(iii) distributing the associated policy to at least one access point (claims 1,
10, and 19). The step of creating the policy and associating the policy with
an access point group is performed by a processor (see 1110 in Fig. 11)
which is part of a switch (1004 in Fig. 10 and 1102 in Fig. 11). The step of
distributing the associated policy to an access point in the plurality of access
point groups is performed by a transmitter (1104 in Fig. 11) that is also part
of the switch.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for hardware acceleration in a hybrid wired/wireless
local area network, the method comprising:
creating at least one policy to be distributed among at least one of a
plurality of access point groups;

Appeal 2009-003871
Application 10/657,942

3
associating said at least one policy with a particular one of said access
point groups; and
distributing said associated at least one policy to at least one access
point in said plurality of access point groups.
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Eichert US 6,393,474 B1 May 21, 2002

Forslow 2002/0069278 A1 June 6, 2002

The following sole rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1 to 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eichert and Forslow.
The Examiner relies upon Eichert as describing all of the features of a
system, machine executable code, and method for hardware acceleration in a
wired local area network (Ans. 3, 4). The Examiner relies upon Forslow as
describing a policy administration method for distributing a policy to access
points in a wireless network (Ans. 4). The Examiner determined that it
would have been obvious “to incorporate the teachings of Forslow with
those of Eichert et al. because it is desirable to implement a policy
management system that can be dynamically controlled in a wireless
network, due to their wide popularity and the ever increasing mobility of
society” (Ans. 4). Appellants do not dispute the motivation for making the
combination, or otherwise argue that the combination would not work.
Appellants contend, inter alia, that Eichert (i) does not teach or
suggest associating a policy with one of the access point groups as set forth

Appeal 2009-003871
Application 10/657,942

4
in each of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 (App. Br. 6-8); (ii) teaches a
single network device as opposed to a plurality of access points in groups
(App. Br. 6-8); and (iii) sends the policy to all access points (i.e., to the
entire network), and not just one or a “particular” access point (Reply Br. 4-
5).
We note that Appellants’ third line of argument with regard to claims
1, 10, and 19, that Eichert sends the policy to all points and not a particular
one, is not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. In other words, the
claimed invention set forth in claims 1, 10, and 19 does not require that the
policy be sent to only some or one of the access points, and not to the others.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1, 10, and 19
encompass a system and method that could potentially send a policy to all of
the access points, but associates and distributes that policy to “at least one
access point” as set forth in claims 1, 10, and 19. Accordingly, the
obviousness issue presented only concerns Appellants’ first and second
contentions discussed supra.

ISSUE
Does Eichert disclose or suggest associating at least one policy with a
particular one of a plurality of access point groups as recited in claims 1, 10,
and 19?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Eichert describes a system and method for distributing a policy to a
network that contains a plurality of “nodes” or “[m]ultiple network

Appeal 2009-003871
Application 10/657,942

5
devices” such as routers, remote access equipment, switches, repeaters
and network cards (see Abs.; Figs. 1, 3; col. 2, ll. 1-54; col. 4, ll. 1-18;
col. 7, ll. 31-56; col. 8, ll. 31-42; col. 9, ll. 1-32; claim 1 at col. 12, ll.
33-53). Eichert describes a policy management system with a policy
implementation component that can “define how the network device
should behave when confronted with a particular situation” (Abs.).
2. According to Eichert, policy is implemented when “a signal indicating
that a new policy . . . is available” (col. 4, ll. 13-14). And, this occurs
when a file is deposited onto a server or storage device, which “can
occur in many ways including, but not limited to, the changing of a
state or variable that the enforcement device monitors” (col. 4, ll. 10-
12), or can occur when instructions have been input (col. 2, ll. 47-54;
col. 7, ll. 1-30; col. 9, ll. 11-17).
3. Specifically, Eichert describes a policy management system for
distributing a policy to a “variety of network devices, i.e., nodes or
active nodes, such as routers, remote access equipment, switches,
repeaters, network cards, and end system processes having security
functions” (col. 2, ll. 9-12).
4. Eichert defines the policy by defining how the network device should
work in particular situations (Abs.), and policy enforcement is
described as serving “to enforce the defined policy” (col. 2, ll. 20-23).
5. Eichert describes a system administrator for inputting instructions
representing policy using GUI and interface 101 of management
station 100 (col. 7, ll. 1-7).

Appeal 2009-003871
Application 10/657,942

6
6. Eichert describes issuing policy through the network using network
devices such as switches and/or servers (Abs.; col. 2, ll. 10-11 and 28-
33; col. 4, ll. 1-18).
7. Eichert describes using “rules” or “protocols” for distributing policy
(col. 7, l. 53; col. 8 discussing rules, objects, and format; col. 9, l. 19
discussing protocols).
8. Forslow describes distributing policy using “routing protocols” (¶¶
[0034], [0095]).
9. Forslow describes issuing policy using multicasting, groupcasting or
xcasting, unicasting, and Bluetooth (¶¶ [0034], [0088], and [0095]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Construction
“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Obviousness
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The

Appeal 2009-003871
Application 10/657,942

7
Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 10, and 19
At the outset, we note that each of the independent claims on appeal
(claims 1, 10, and 19) recites the same subject matter that is at issue in this
case: associating at least one policy with a particular one of the access point
groups.
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection with respect to independent
claims 1, 10, and 19 for the reasons that follow. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions of obviousness with respect to
claims 1, 10, and 19 (Ans. 3-13), and adopt them as our own, along with
some amplification of the Examiner’s explanation of the teachings of Eichert
(FF 1-7) and Forslow (FF 8, 9). See Fine, 837 F.2d at 1073; Kahn, 441 F.3d
at 988.
Eichert discloses or suggests associating at least one policy with a
particular one of a plurality of access point groups as recited in claims 1, 10,
and 19 because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the access points
and access point groups of the claims encompasses the network devices
described by Eichert as including “nodes or active nodes, such as routers,
remote access equipment, switches, repeaters, network cards, and end
system processes having security functions” (FF 1, 3). In addition, one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ claimed invention would

Appeal 2009-003871
Application 10/657,942

8
understand that any of the nodes, switches, or routers described by Eichert
(i.e., network devices) could consist of access points which could be
grouped into groups of access points. In other words, Eichert’s description
of nodes, switches, and routers encompasses the “access points” and “groups
of access points” claimed by Appellants in claims 1, 10, and 19 since all of
these elements are points at which a person could access the
internet/network.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 merely require that at least one policy be
associated with, and distributed to, an access point (see claims 1, 10, and
19). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrases “access point”
and “access point group” would include the router, switches, and/or nodes of
Eichert. See Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. In other words,
the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1, 10, and 19 merely
requires that a policy be associated with an access point and then be
distributed to at least one access point in the plurality of access point groups
(i.e., network). The broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1, 10, and
19 does not require the system, method, and machine executable code to
associate and distribute the policy with respect to only one of the access
points as opposed to all of the access points. Therefore, in light of our
findings with respect to Eichert (FF 1-7) supra, Eichert and Forslow in
combination disclose or suggest all of the limitations of the independent
claims as broadly interpreted.
The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning to support the combination for the legal conclusion of
obviousness (Ans. 3-8). See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. Appellants have not

Appeal 2009-003871
Application 10/657,942

9
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in relying on the combination of
Eichert and Forslow as teaching or suggesting a system, machine executable
code, and method for hardware acceleration in a wired local area network
including associating at least one policy with a particular one of the access
point groups, as set forth in independent claims 1, 10, and 19. Appellants’
contentions (App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 5) that Eichert (and thus the
combination of Eichert and Forslow) fails to disclose or suggest (i) plural
access point groups, or (ii) associating a policy with a particular one of those
groups are unpersuasive in light of our findings with respect to Eichert (FF
1-7) and our claim interpretation discussed supra. Appellants’ argument
(Reply Br. 4, 5) that Eichert associates a policy with all of the network
devices instead of just one, and therefore distributes the policy to the entire
network, is also unconvincing inasmuch as the claims do not require only
one device to receive policy.
For all of the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Eichert and Fowslow. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found
Appellant’s claimed subject matter in claims 1, 10, and 19 obvious in light
of the combination of Eichert and Forslow. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19.
Claims 2, 11, and 20
Turning next to claims 2, 11, and 20, we will likewise sustain the
obviousness rejection of these claims because Eichert discloses defining a

Appeal 2009-003871
Application 10/657,942

10
policy (see FF 1, 4), and this is equivalent to “identifying” a policy as recited
in the claims.
Claims 3, 12, and 21
Turning next to claims 3, 12, and 21, we will sustain the obviousness
rejection of these claims because we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7, 8, 10,
and 14) that Eichert’s description of distributing policy when a signal
indicating a new policy is available, and doing so based on the “changing of
a state or variable” that is being monitored (FF 2), is tantamount to the
recited “occurrence of an event” (claims 3, 12, and 21).
Claims 4, 13, and 22
Turning next to claims 4, 13, and 22, we will sustain the obviousness
rejection of these claims because we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7, 8, 10,
and 14-15) that Eichert discloses distributing a defined, thus identified,
policy to an access point group upon the occurrence of an event as discussed
supra with respect to (i) claims 1, 10, and 19, and (ii) claims 3, 12, and 21.
Claims 5, 14, and 23
Turning next to claims 5, 14, and 23, we will sustain the obviousness
rejection of these claims for the reasons provided by the Examiner (Ans. 7,
9, 10, and 15) and for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
claims 4, 13, and 22 from which these claims ultimately depend.
Claims 6, 15, and 24
Turning next to claims 6, 15, and 24, we will sustain the obviousness
rejection of these claims for the reasons provided by the Examiner (Ans. 7,
9, 10, and 16) and for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
claims 4, 13, and 22 from which these claims ultimately depend.

Appeal 2009-003871
Application 10/657,942

11
Claims 7, 16, and 25
Turning next to claims 7, 16, and 25, we will sustain the obviousness
rejection of these claims because we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7, 9, 11,
and 16-17) that Eichert discloses distributing and communicating a policy
through a switch or a server (FF 6), because one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that one form of network device is a server.
Claims 8, 17, and 26
Turning next to claims 8, 17, and 26, we will sustain the obviousness
rejection of these claims because we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8, 9, 11,
and 17-18) that (i) Forslow discloses broadcasting (FF 9), and (ii) it would
have been obvious to the skilled artisan to implement the broadcasting
described by Forslow in the method and system of Eichert.
Claims 9, 18, and 27
Turning lastly to claims 9, 18, and 27, we will sustain the obviousness
rejection of these claims because we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8-11,
18-19) that (i) Forslow discloses or suggests a “routing protocol” which is
equivalent to the recited messaging protocol (FF 8), and (ii) it would have
been obvious to the skilled artisan to implement the protocol described by
Forslow in the system and method of Eichert.
Summary
In summary, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection
possesses a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. Eichert discloses or suggests
associating at least one policy with a particular one of a plurality of access
point groups as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19. Appellants have not

Appeal 2009-003871
Application 10/657,942

12
demonstrated any reversible error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions with respect to claims 1 to 27.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 to 27 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

KIS

MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661