Ex Parte Abuan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2018

14063823 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2018)

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.
14/063,823 10/25/2013 Joe Abuan 5607.0250004
(P3229USC1)
1701
63975 7590 02/09/2018
NTFRNF KFNNT FR FtOT DNTFTN Rr FOY PT T f EXAMINER
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
NGUYEN, MINH CHAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2018 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):
e-office @ skgf.com
Apple-eOA @ skgf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOE ABUAN, BERKAT TUNG,
HYEONKUK JEONG, and JOSHUA GRAESSLEY
Appeal 2016-006245
Application 14/063,823
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—15. An Oral Hearing scheduled for January 16, 2018,
was waived by Appellant1. Waiver of Hearing (Dec. 12, 2017). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant and the real party in interest is the Applicant, identified in the
Appeal Brief as Apple, Inc. App. Br. 1; Bib. Data Sheet.
Appeal 2016-006245
Application 14/063,823
Invention
The Specification discloses “[mjethods for establishing a direct peer-
to-peer (‘P2P’) connection between computers” (Abstract) in which “[a]n
initiating computer determines its public address by querying an address-
determination server” (Spec. 111).
Exemplary Claim {key limitations emphasized)
1. A method of initiating a peer-to-peer network connection
from a first computer to a second computer across a public
network, wherein at least one of the first and second computers
is on a private network and is connected to the public network
through a network address translator, the first and second
computers having each established a connection to a common
Relay server, the method comprising:
sending an address-determination message from the first
computer to an address-determination server,
receiving at the first computer a reply to the address-
determination message',
composing and sending from the first computer to the Relay
server for retransmitting to the second computer, a message
comprising a request to initiate
a connection and one or more addresses corresponding to the
first computer;
receiving from the Relay server a message, at the first
computer, originating at the second computer and comprising
one or more addresses corresponding to the second computer;
and
sending a request, from the first computer, to initiate connection
to one or more of the addresses corresponding to the second
computer in sequence until a direct connection is established
between the first and second computers.
2
Appeal 2016-006245
Application 14/063,823
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kunze et al. (US 6,879,593 Bl; issued Apr. 12, 2005). Final
Act. 2—6.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—14
Illustrative claim 1 is directed to a method of initiating a P2P
connection that includes the steps of: (1) “sending an address-determination
message from the first computer to an address-determination server” and (2)
“receiving at the first computer a reply to the address-determination
message.” As explained in the Specification, an address-determination
server is used by an initiating computer in order to determine the initiating
computer’s public address. See Spec. Ull, 25, and 29-30.
The Examiner finds that Kunze’s teachings directed to Network
Address Port Translation—a technology in which “particular public network
sockets of the gateway are mapped to particular sockets on nodes of the
private network” (Kunze col. 1,11. 22—24)—disclose the claimed address-
determination message and reply. Final Act. 3 (citing Kunze col. 1,11. lb-
42); see also Ans. 7 (citing Kunze col 3,11. 29-35 and 49-53).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Kunze is limited to
describing a gateway that forwards packets between devices on different
networks.” App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3^4. That is, Kunze merely
discloses how a packet addressed to a gateway is forwarded, based on its
destination public socket (i.e., a public network address and port identifier),
to a private network socket having a private network address and port
identifier different from the public network address and port identifier. See
3
Appeal 2016-006245
Application 14/063,823
Kunze col. 1,11. 24—28, and col. 2,11. 1—3. Appellant argues such
forwarding does not “describe or suggest either ... an address-determination
message or an address-determination server” as claimed. App. Br. 10.
We agree the Examiner erred. The cited teachings of Kunze merely
relate to the mapping of public network sockets to private network sockets.
See, e.g., Kunze col. 1,11. 33—36, and col. 3,11. 29—36. The Examiner’s
findings do not show that such mapping is directed to sending an address-
determination message and receiving a reply to the address-determination
message. Notably, the Network Port Address Translation technology
described in Kunze is directed to enabling “nodes on the public network to
transmit packets to nodes on the private network” by automatically
forwarding packets “to the socket on the private network to which the public
network socket is mapped.” Kunze col. 1,11. 16—28. The cited portions of
Kunze do not delve into a particular exchange—such as one of the nodes on
the public network responding to an address-determination message sent
from one of the nodes on the private network—that would necessitate such
port mapping.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—14, which contain similar recitations.
Claim 15
Although we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of independent claim 8, which claim 15 references, we sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 15. Claim 15 recites a
“memory for storing instructions in accordance with claim 8” (emphasis
added) and “a processor for executing the instructions” (emphasis added).
These are merely non-limiting intended uses of the memory and processor of
4
Appeal 2016-006245
Application 14/063,823
claim 15. The instructions of claim 8 do not have to be stored in the
memory or executed by the processor for a device to fall within the scope of
claim 15 given a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of the memory and
processor recitations.
Appellant’s arguments do not show that the Examiner erred in finding
Kunze discloses a network interface, memory, and processor, as broadly
recited in claim 15. See App. Br. 8—13; Reply Br. 2—6. Rather, Appellant’s
arguments are incommensurate with the scope of claim 15 and, therefore, are
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claim 15.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 15.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5