Futurewei Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2020

15060139 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2020)

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.
15/060,139 03/03/2016 Donald E. Eastlake III 4502-03501 4328
89394 7590 04/30/2020
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
EXAMINER
AUNG, SAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2020 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):
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONALD E. EASTLAKE, YAN ZHUANG, and YIZHOU LI
Appeal 2019-001566
Application 15/060,139
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Huawei Technologies
Co. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-001566
Application 15/060,139

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a server-based local address assignment
protocol. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An endpoint client comprising:
a memory;
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to:
perform a random number generation;
generate a host identifier (HID) based on the random
number generation and independent of router input or server
input, the HID is substantially unique within a local network;
and
generate, using the HID, an initial message requesting a
media access control (MAC) address for a local address; and
a transmitter coupled to the processor and configured to
transmit the initial message towards at least one server.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Matsuhira
Le Pennec
Yamada
Park
MeLampy
US 2004/0205235 A1
US 2004/0205245 A1
US 2007/023159 A1
US 2012/0311660 A1
US 2016/0094444 A1
Oct. 14, 2004
Oct. 14, 2004
Oct. 11, 2007
Dec. 6, 2012
Mar. 31, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsuhira (US 2004/0205235 Al) in view of Park (US
2012/0311660 Al). Final Act. 3.
Claims 5, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsuhira (US 2004/0205235 Al) in view of Park (US
Appeal 2019-001566
Application 15/060,139

3
2012/0311660 Al) and further in view of Yamada (US 2007/0237159 Al).
Final Act. 7.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Matsuhira (US 2004/0205235 Al) in view of Park (US 2012/0311660
Al) further in view of Yamada (US 2007/0237159 Al), and further in view
of MeLampy (US 2016/0099444 Al). Final Act. 9.
Claims 12–16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Matsuhira (US 2004/0205235 Al) in view of
MeLampy (US 2016/0099444 Al), and further in view of Park (US
2012/0311660 Al). Final Act. 10.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Matsuhira (US 2004/0205235 Al) in view of Park (US 2012/0311660
Al) further in view of Yamada (US 2007/0237159 Al), and further in view
of Le Pennec (US 2004/0205245 Al). Final Act. 14.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Matsuhira (US 2004/0205235 Al) in view of MeLampy (US
2016/0099444 Al) and further in view of Le Pennec (US 2004/0205245 Al).
Final Act. 16.

OPINION
Claims 1–4, 7, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues inter alia that the combination of Matsuhira and
Park does not teach or suggest the limitation of “generate, using the HID, an
initial message requesting a media access control (MAC) address for a local
address,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 17. See Appeal
Br. 18–21. According to Appellant, the Examiner admits that Matsuhira
Appeal 2019-001566
Application 15/060,139

4
does not teach the limitation of “requesting a MAC address for a local
address” and relies on Park for teaching the limitation. See id. at 18 (citing
Final Act. 4, paras. 31–32, and Fig. 4). In particular, Appellant argues that
Park’s user terminal 200 requests user access policy information, not a MAC
address for a local address. See id. at 18–19 (citing Park paras. 31–32).
The Examiner finds that Park teaches the UE (i.e., user equipment)
sends a request message for authentication to the policy server and the
authentication is performed “using the MAC address.” Ans. 8 (citing para.
31). The Examiner does not respond to Appellant’s argument about Park not
teaching the UE “requesting a MAC address for a local address” nor do we
find the cited paragraphs 31 and 32 disclose anything regarding “requesting
a MAC address.” Park, at best, teaches using a MAC address for
authentication, not requesting a MAC address. See Park para. 31.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record before us to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 17 and for the same reasons the
rejections of claims 2–4 and 7.
Claims 5, 8, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 8, 9, and 10
because the additional reference of Yamada used to reject these claims does
not cure the above cited deficiency.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 because the
additional reference of MeLampy used to reject this claim does not cure the
above cited deficiency.
Appeal 2019-001566
Application 15/060,139

5
Claims 12–16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12–16, 19, and 20
because the additional reference of MeLampy used to reject these claims
does not cure the above cited deficiency.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 because the additional
references of Yamada and Le Pennec used to reject this claim does not cure
the above cited deficiency.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 because the
additional reference of Le Pennec does not cure the above cited deficiency.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7, 17 103 (a) Matsuhira, Park 1–4, 7, 17
5, 8, 9, 10 103(a) Matsuhira, Park,
Yamada
5, 8, 9, 10
11 103(a) Matsuhira, Park,
Yamada, MeLampy
11
12–16, 19,
20
103(a) Matsuhira, MeLampy,
Park
12–16, 19,
20
6 103(a) Matsuhira, Park,
Yamada and Le Pennec
6
18 103(a) Matsuhira, MeLampy,
Le Pennec
18
Appeal 2019-001566
Application 15/060,139

6
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome:
1–20
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
REVERSED