Ex Parte Zur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2013

11341113 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte URI EL ZUR and SCOTT McDANIEL
____________________

Appeal 2010-008684
Application 11/341,113
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008684
Application 11/341,113

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-30, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants invented a method and system for mitigating denial of
service in a communication network. Spec. ¶ 03.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter added]:
1. A method for processing packets, the method comprising:
[1] determining whether at least a first connection identifier
of a received incoming packet matches at least a second
connection identifier stored in memory; and
[2] utilizing a screening mechanism and a rate limiting
mechanism to regulate said received incoming packet based on
said determining.

REFERENCE
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Ricciulli US 7,331,060 B1 Feb. 12, 2008
(filed Sep. 10, 2002)

REJECTION
Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Ricciulli.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed October 6, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 22,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 22, 2010) and
Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed May 7, 2009).
Appeal 2010-008684
Application 11/341,113

3

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-30
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Ricciulli turns on whether
Ricciulli discloses matching a received connection identifier with a stored
connection identifier and whether Ricciulli discloses a screening mechanism
and a rate limiting mechanism to regulate the received connection identifier.

ANALYSIS
The Appellants contend that Ricciulli does not disclose “determining
whether at least a first connection identifier of a received incoming packet
matches at least a second connection identifier stored in memory,” as per
independent claims 1 and 14 and as incorporated by dependent claims 2 and
15, because Ricciulli only describes a network attached router coprocessor
(NARC) that maintains network traffic records in memory and detects a
flooding condition based on observing received and stored data packets.
App. Br. 5-6. We disagree with the Appellants. As found by the Examiner,
Ricciulli describes receiving a data packet having a connection identifier
(e.g., source and destination addresses) and further discloses matching the
received connection identifier with other connection identifiers stored in one
or more data structures. Ans. 10-12 (citing Ricciulli Fig. 4). As such,
Ricciulli discloses receiving a data packet with connection identifiers and
then determines if the received data packet matches with at least one stored
connection identifier.
The Appellants further contend that Ricciulli fails to describe
“utilizing a screening mechanism and a rate limiting mechanism to regulate
Appeal 2010-008684
Application 11/341,113

4
said received incoming packet based on said determining,” as per
independent claims 1 and 14 and as incorporated by dependent claims 2 and
15. The Appellants specifically argue that Ricciulli fails to disclose this
limitation because Ricciulli only describes a single element that performs the
screening and rate limiting. App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2-4. We disagree with
the Appellants. As found by the Examiner, Ricciulli describes two elements,
i.e., a filter and a leaky bucket algorithm, that regulate said received
incoming packet based on said determining. Ans. 12-13 (citing Ricciulli
13:1-14, 67).
The Appellants further contend that Ricciulli fails to disclose this
limitation because Ricciulli does not describe the screening and rate limiting
being performed “if at least a first connection identifier of a received
incoming packet matches with at least a second connection identifier.” App.
Br. 7-10. However, we are not persuaded because this argument is not
commensurate with the claim language.
The Appellants additionally contend that Ricciulli fails to describe the
limitations of claims 3-13 and 16-30. App. Br. 11-45; Reply Br. 4-9. The
Examiner has fully responded to these arguments. Ans. 13-35. We agree
with and accordingly adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and analysis, and
reach the same legal conclusions as the Examiner in that response.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as anticipated by Ricciulli.

Appeal 2010-008684
Application 11/341,113

5
DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Ricciulli is sustained.
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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc