09866259 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2012)

Ex Parte Yik et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 28, 2012

09866259 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2012)

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. 09/866,259 05/25/2001 James Ching-Shau Yik 013628.00635 (S-199) 5515 77339 7590 08/29/2012 JACKSON WALKER (CONEXANT) 901 MAIN STREET, SUITE 6000 DALLAS, TX 75202 EXAMINER TOLENTINO, RODERICK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2439 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte JAMES CHING-SHAU YIK and CHANGHWA LIN _____________ Appeal 2010-006343 Application 09/866,259 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006343 Application 09/866,259 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1 through 20. We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed a secure data switching node. See pages 4-6 of Appellants’ Specification. Claims 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A secure data switching node comprising: a. a plurality of communications ports; b. a switching database having a plurality of switching entries, each one of the plurality of switching entries specifying an association between one or more data network node identifiers and one or more respective communications ports; c. a plurality of switching entry protection flags, corresponding to the plurality of switching entries, each of the plurality of switching entry protection flags configured with a predetermined value that determines whether each of the switching entries is protected from update; and d. a controller executing a secure switching database update process, for at least one of the switching entries, wherein executing a secure switching database update process includes determining, from at least one of the switching entry protection flags, whether the at least one of the switching entries is protected from update and receiving a modification instruction including a change of at least one of the respective communications ports for at least one of the data network node identifiers, whereby an attempt by a hostile data network node to effect a modification of the at least one communication port of a protected switching entry is prevented when the protection flag is set, enabling the data switching node to operate securely concurrently in friendly and hostile data networking environments. Appeal 2010-006343 Application 09/866,259 3 REFERNCES LUBARSKY US 4,893,340 Jan. 9, 1990 CIVANLAR US 5,996,021 Nov. 30, 1999 FELDMAN US 6,069,889 May 30, 2000 STRONGIN US 2002/0147916 A1 Oct. 10, 2002 LEE US 2002/0156888 A1 Oct. 24, 2002 ANDERSON US 2003/0014665 A1 Jan. 16, 2003 TUCK US 6,870,844 B2 Mar. 22, 2005 DANIELL US 7,065,644 B2 Jun. 20, 2006 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 through 7, and 10 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Lee. Answer 3-4.1 The Examiner has rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee in view of Civanlar. Answer 5. The Examiner has rejected claims 8 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee in view of Lubarsky. Answer 5-6. The Examiner has rejected claims 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee in view of Daniell. Answer 6-7. ISSUE Appellants argue on pages 11 through 31 of the Brief2 and page 1 through 3 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of independent 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on January 4, 2010. 2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief dated October 14, 2009 and Reply Brief dated March 4, 2010. Appeal 2010-006343 Application 09/866,259 4 claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the issue: did the Examiner error in finding Lee teaches the use of flags as recited in each of the independent claims?3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion, that the Examiner erred in finding Lee teaches the use of flags as recited in each of the independent claims. The Examiner states several limitations of the claims are intended use, and that there is no structural difference between the claims and Lee. Answer 7-8. To support this conclusion the Examiner finds that Lee teaches a port validity flag which determines if the port is enabled or disabled based upon the setting of the flag. Answer 8. We concur. Further, the Examiner states the “[t]he essential structure of the claimed invention is just a plurality of ports with associated flags.” Answer 8.4 We disagree, each of the claims recite a flag (or equivalent mechanism), while the name of the flag which describes the function of the flag will not define the invention, each of the claims further recites a specific function which is performed in dependence on this flag, e.g., claim 1 recites a controller executing a secure database update process based upon a determination of the flags status. Thus, the claimed flags (or equivalent mechanism) are directed to a specific function 3 We note Appellants’ arguments present additional issues but we do not reach them as this issue is dispositive of the Appeal. 4 The Examiner repeats verbatim the same analysis with respect to each independent claim on pages 8 through 16 of the Answer. Appeal 2010-006343 Application 09/866,259 5 and as the Examiner has not shown that the flags discussed in Lee are used in the same manner as recited in the claims; Lee does not teach the same structure as recited in each claim. Thus, we are persuaded of error and will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7, and 10 through 14. The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of the dependent claims relies upon a similar rationale to teach the limitations of the independent claims and the Examiner has not shown that the additional references cited provide teachings which solve the deficiencies noted in the anticipation rejection. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 20. ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 is reversed. REVERSED ke