Ex Parte Sansone

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12809773 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/809,773 06/21/2010
27045 7590
ERICSSON INC
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
MIS EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
06/29/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Carlo Sansone
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P22227-US1 1337
EXAMINER
DECKER, CASSANDRA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
kara.coffman@ericsson.com
kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARLO SANSONE
Appeal2014-005739
Application 12/809,773
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-19. Claim 20 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-005739
Application 12/809,773
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A handover method from a first access point to a second
access point for a first node being a mobile node and having a
first original address in communication with a second node
having a second original address, wherein the first and second
nodes operate over a plurality of communication layers, the
method comprising:
- requesting a handover to the second access point from
the first access point for the communication;
- determining a new address for the first node based on the
request for handover;
- notifying a change of address to the second node that
enables the second node to route the communication using the
new address;
- identifying one or more existing sessions in the
communication between the first and second nodes which require
an original address to operate; and
- routing the communication using the new address, such
that on reception of the communication the second node
recognizes the first original address of the communication,
wherein the routing includes translating the first original address
to the new address for the said one or more existing sessions.
THE EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS
Claims 2, 3---6, 8, and 10-19 stand rejected under 35U.S.C.§l12(b)
or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims
1, 3-10, and 12-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sethi (US 7,082,118 B 1; July 25, 2006), Ansari et al. (US
2005/0198384 Al; Sept. 8, 2005), and Mitchel et al. (US 2006/0215607 Al;
Sept. 28, 2006). Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
2
Appeal2014-005739
Application 12/809,773
being unpatentable over Sethi, Ansari, Mitchel, and Ollikainen (US
2008/0219271 Al; Sept. 11, 2008).
ANALYSIS
As to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Appellant
argues nothing in Sethi, Ansari, and Mitchel teaches or suggests the
"routing" limitation of claim 1. Appellant characterizes that limitation as
"the first node, which has requested a handover to a second access point
from a first access point, communicates by sending messages that include a
first original address," and, "[ w ]hen the second node receives the
communication from the first node, the second node recognizes the first
original address and translates the first original address to a new address."
App. Br. 4--5.
The Examiner cites Sethi as teaching the claimed address translation
operations except that Sethi discloses performing the translations at nodes
adjacent to the claimed first node and second node instead of performing the
translations at the first and second nodes themselves. Final Act. 5---6 (citing
Sethi 4:32-51, 4:64--5:6, 5:60---6:20, 6:26-38, 6:58-7:17, 8:38-56); Ans. 14--
16. The Examiner cites Ansari as evidence that it was known to perform
address translations at mobile nodes, and concludes that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill to perform the translation operations
taught by Sethi at mobile nodes. Final Act. 6; Ans. 16-17.
In response, Appellant contends Sethi teaches using network devices
to perform address translations to enable a correspondent node and mobile
node to communicate with each other using an old address that was valid
before the migration of the mobile node from a first location to a new
3
Appeal2014-005739
Application 12/809,773
location. Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill
would not have combined Sethi, Ansari, and Mitchel, and the combination
would render Sethi unsuitable for its intended purpose, because "Sethi' s
system does not require post-migration communication to be conducted
using a new address," which is in stark contrast to Ansari's system which
would not recognize communication conducted using the old address and
requires that requires post-migration communication to use the new address.
Reply Br. 5 (italics omitted). "In other words, the combination of Ansari's
system with Sethi' s system would not allow the combined system of Sethi,
Ansari, and Mitchel to continue to communicate using an old address after a
mobile node has moved from a first location to a second location." Reply
Br. 5 (italics omitted); accord App. Br. 7.
We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive and agree with the
Examiner that Appellant's arguments "appear to be directed to the issue of
the bodily incorporation" of the references. Ans. 18. "The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference." See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant's arguments ignores the
substance of the Examiner's cited combination by focusing on operational
details in Ansari that are unrelated to the teaching for which the Examiner
cites Ansari-namely, Ansari's evidence that it was known to perform
address migration functions at mobile nodes. See Ans. 6. According to the
Examiner, "[t]he difference between Sethi and the claimed process is the
location at which the address translation process is performed," and the
Examiner merely relies on Ansari for disclosing and suggesting that "post-
handover address migration process can be performed at the first and second
4
Appeal2014-005739
Application 12/809,773
nodes, as claimed." Ans. 17-18. The Examiner does not propose
combining Ansari' s operations with the operations of Sethi, and we are
accordingly unpersuaded that "[s]ince the combination of Ansari and Sethi
would render Sethi unsatisfactory for its intended purpose[], there is no
suggestion or motivation to combine Ansari with Sethi and/or Mitchel."
Reply Br. 5 (italics omitted).
Having considered each of Appellant's arguments in view of the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and the evidence of record, we are
unpersuaded of error and sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well
as the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-19 which Appellant does not argue
individually. We adopt as our own the Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and reasons in the Examiner's Final Rejection and Answer.
Appellant does not substantively address the Examiner's rejections of
claims 2, 3---6, 8, and 10-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (see
App. Br. 8), and we therefore sustain the Examiner's rejections proforma.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) and the Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 3---6, 8, and 10-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5