Ex Parte 7424737 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

95000575 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

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.
95/000,575 10/04/2010 7424737 GRAPH-003RXC 7482
28661 7590 09/27/2013
Lewis Roca Rothgerber
2440 W. El Camino Real, 6th Floor
Mountain View, CA 94040
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MINH DIEU T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
Requester

v.

GRAPHON CORP.
Patent Owner
____________

Appeal 2013-009169
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/000,575
United States Patent 7,424,737 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2013-009169
Reexamination Control 95/000,575
U.S. Patent 7,424,737 B2

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
Patent Owner GraphOn Corporation (“Appellant”) appeals under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1-13. App. Br. 4.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and
315. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request for inter partes reexamination
filed on behalf of Requester, Juniper Networks, Inc., on October 4, 2010, of
United States Patent 7,424,737 B2 (“the ‘737 patent”), issued to Ralph E.
Wesinger, Jr. and Christopher D. Coley on September 9, 2008.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending. Although claims 1-26 issued with
the ‘737 patent, claims 14-26 were later cancelled during reexamination.
RAN 2. In that proceeding, the Examiner adopted some of Requester’s
proposed rejections of claims 1-13. RAN 5-7, 9-28. The Examiner,
however, did not adopt other proposed rejections of various claims (RAN 6-
8, 18-19, 22, 25) and deemed some proposed rejections moot (RAN 8, 12,
15, 18, 21, 24, 27), nor does Respondent appeal that decision.

RELATED PROCEEDINGS
This appeal is said to be related to two other inter partes
reexamination proceedings (Control Nos. 95/000,564 and 95/000,572)

1
Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Right of Appeal Notice mailed
April 26, 2012 (“RAN”); (2) Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed July 27, 2012
(“App. Br.”); and (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 10, 2013
(“Ans.”).
Appeal 2013-009169
Reexamination Control 95/000,575
U.S. Patent 7,424,737 B2

3
pertaining to related U.S. Patents 7,249,378 and 7,269,847, respectively.
App. Br. 22. Both related proceedings involve currently-pending appeals to
this Board.
2

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s virtual host protocol transforms traffic between an
Internet Protocol (IP)-compliant source and a non-IP-compliant destination.
See generally ‘737 patent, Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:

A firewall device for protocol transforming traffic traversing
between an IP-compliant source and a non-IP compliant destination
comprising:
a firewall device having a first edge connection corresponding
to a first network and a second edge connection corresponding to a
second network connection;
at least one of said first or second edge connections further
comprising at least one set of virtual hosts for providing network
connectivity between the IP-compliant source and the non-IP co-
mpliant destination, each of said virtual hosts of said set
corresponding to a distinct home through which a connection may be
made between said IP compliant source and said non-IP compliant
destination;
each of said virtual hosts further comprising a communications
channel configured to:
receive IP-compliant traffic from said source being destined for
said non-IP compliant destination; and
channel process said traffic in said communications channel to
perform a protocol translation of said traffic, thereby transforming
said IP-compliant traffic into a non-IP protocol appropriate for said
destination.

2
Control Nos. 95/000,572 and 95/000,564 have been assigned Appeal
Numbers 2013-004125 and 2013-009167, respectively.
Appeal 2013-009169
Reexamination Control 95/000,575
U.S. Patent 7,424,737 B2

4
THE EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baehr (US 5,802,320; issued
Sept. 1, 1998; filed May 18, 1995), Rostoker (US 5,708,659; issued
Jan. 13, 1998; filed Feb. 16, 1995), and Jerry Ablan & Scott Yanoff, WEB
SITE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE (1996) (“Ablan”). Ans. 9-10.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baehr, Rostoker, and Tilton.
Ans. 10.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baehr, Rostoker, Smoot Carl-
Mitchell & John S. Quarterman, PRACTICAL INTERNETWORKING TCP/IP AND
UNIX (1993) (“Quarterman”), Ablan, and Tilton. Ans. 10.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-13
3

under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baehr, Rostoker, Grady
Booch & Doug Bryan, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING WITH ADA (3d ed. 1994)
(“Booch”), and Ablan. Ans. 11.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baehr, Rostoker, Dieter
Dworkin Muller et al., Excerpt from the GreatCircle Firewall Mailing List
November 8-16, 1995 (1995) (“Muller”), Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and
Tilton. Ans. 11.

3
Although the Examiner includes claims 27-46 in this rejection (Ans. 11),
only claims 1-13 are pending. Accordingly, we deem the Examiner’s error
harmless and present the correct claim listing here for clarity.
Appeal 2013-009169
Reexamination Control 95/000,575
U.S. Patent 7,424,737 B2

5
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3, 6,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over James E. Gaskin,
NOVELL’S GUIDE TO INTEGRATING UNIX AND NETWARE NETWORKS (1993)
(“Gaskin”). Ans. 12.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3, 6,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gaskin and Ablan.
Ans. 12.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3, 6,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gaskin, Ablan, and
Booch. Ans. 12-13.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3, 6,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gaskin, Ablan, and
Baehr. Ans. 13.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3, 6,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gaskin, Baehr,
Muller, Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and Tilton. Ans. 13-14.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gaskin, Colin Smythe,
INTERNETWORKING: DESIGNING THE RIGHT ARCHITECTURES (1995)
(“Smythe”), Mark Nelson & Jean-Loup Gailly, THE DATA COMPRESSION
BOOK (1995) (“Nelson”), Baehr, Muller, Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and
Tilton. Ans. 14.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3, 6,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over CONFIGURATION
Appeal 2013-009169
Reexamination Control 95/000,575
U.S. Patent 7,424,737 B2

6
GUIDE FOR PORTMASTER PRODUCTS, Livingston Enters., Inc. (Dec. 1995)
(“Livingston”) and Gaskin. Ans. 14-15.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3, 6,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Livingston, Gaskin,
and Ablan. Ans. 15.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3-6,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Livingston, Gaskin,
Ablan, and Booch. Ans. 15-16.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3-6,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Livingston, Gaskin,
Ablan, and Baehr. Ans. 16.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3-6,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Livingston, Gaskin,
Baehr, Muller, Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and Tilton. Ans. 16-17.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Livingston, Gaskin, Smythe,
Nelson, Baehr, Muller, Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and Tilton. Ans. 16-17.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3-6,
9, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over LOCAL AREA
NETWORK CONCEPTS AND PRODUCTS: ROUTERS AND GATEWAYS, IBM Tech.
Support Org. (1st ed. May 1996) (“IBM96”). Ans. 17-18.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3-6,
9, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over IBM96, Ablan,
and Baehr. Ans. 18.
Appeal 2013-009169
Reexamination Control 95/000,575
U.S. Patent 7,424,737 B2

7
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1, 3-6,
9, 10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over IBM96, Baehr,
Muller, Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and Tilton. Ans. 19.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over IBM96, Baehr, Civanlar
(US 5,617,540; issued Apr. 1, 1997; filed July 31, 1995), Smythe, Nelson,
Muller, Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and Tilton. Ans. 19-20.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6, 9,
10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over GAUNTLET 3.1 FOR
IRIX: ADMINISTRATOR’S GUIDE FOR IRIX 5.3 (1996) (“Gauntlet96”), GUIDE
TO INTERNETWORKING: INTERCONNECTING DIVERSE NETWORKS: DOS,
MACINTOSH, UNIX, MAINFRAME (Dave Brambert ed., 1993) (“Brambert”),
and IBM96. Ans. 20.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gauntlet96, Brambert,
and Ablan. Ans. 20-21.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gauntlet96, Brambert,
Ablan, and Booch. Ans. 21.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gauntlet96, Brambert,
Ablan, and Baehr. Ans. 21.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gauntlet96, Brambert,
Baehr, Muller, Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and Tilton. Ans. 22.
Appeal 2013-009169
Reexamination Control 95/000,575
U.S. Patent 7,424,737 B2

8
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gauntlet96, Smythe, IBM96,
Baehr, Muller, Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and Tilton. Ans. 22.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6, 9,
10, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over GAUNTLET FOR
IRIX ADMINISTRATOR’S GUIDE (1995) (“Gauntlet95”), Brambert, and
IBM96. Ans. 23.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gauntlet95, Brambert,
and Ablan. Ans. 23.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gauntlet95, Brambert,
Ablan, and Booch. Ans. 23-24.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gauntlet95, Brambert,
Ablan, and Baehr. Ans. 24.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gauntlet95, Brambert,
Baehr, Muller, Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and Tilton. Ans. 24-25.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gauntlet95, Smythe, Nelson,
IBM96, Baehr, Muller, Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and Tilton. Ans. 25.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over D. Brent Chapman &
Appeal 2013-009169
Reexamination Control 95/000,575
U.S. Patent 7,424,737 B2

9
Elizabeth D. Zwicky, BUILDING INTERNET FIREWALLS (1995) (“Chapman”),
Brambert, and Ablan. Ans. 25.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chapman, Brambert,
Ablan, and Booch. Ans. 26.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chapman, Brambert,
Ablan, and Baehr. Ans. 26.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-6
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chapman, Brambert,
Baehr, Muller, Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and Tilton. Ans. 26-27.
The Examiner adopts Requester’s proposed rejection of claims 1-13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chapman, Smythe, Nelson,
Baehr, Muller, Booch, Quarterman, Ablan, and Tilton. Ans. 27.

ANALYSIS
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons indicated by the
Examiner. Ans. 9-35. Apart from merely summarily asserting that the
claims are not obvious over the Examiner’s cited references because
(1) every claim element was allegedly not known in the art; (2) there is
purportedly no motivation to combine the cited references; and (3) the
Examiner improperly determined that the recited selecting one or more
software modules would be inferred from the cited references (App. Br. 12-
16), Appellant provides no meaningful analysis in this regard to particularly
show error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in rejecting these
Appeal 2013-009169
Reexamination Control 95/000,575
U.S. Patent 7,424,737 B2

10
claims.
4
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim.”). Accord In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art.”). See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii)
(“Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief permitted under this
section or §§ 41.68 and 41.71 will be refused consideration by the Board,
unless good cause is shown.”).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-13 over the various cited references noted above.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-13 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13 is affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this proceeding are governed by
37 C.F.R. §§ 1.956 and 41.79(e).

AFFIRMED

4
We note in passing that Appellant’s argument regarding Issues 3, 32, 40,
and 48 is inapposite, for the Examiner did not adopt the proposed rejections
in connection with those issues. See RAN 6, 18-19, 22, 48.
Appeal 2013-009169
Reexamination Control 95/000,575
U.S. Patent 7,424,737 B2

11
ak

Lewis and Roca, LLP
2440 W. El Camino Real
6
th
Floor
Mountain View, CA 94040

Third Party Requester:

David C. McPhie
Irell & Manella, LLP
840 Newport Center Drive
Suite 400
Newport Beach, CA 92660