Ex Parte Adhikari

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

13220238 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/220,238 08/29/2011 Samarjit Adhikari
56436 7590 07/29/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82653962 1417
EXAMINER
SHIN, KYUNG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMARJIT ADHIKARI
Appeal2014-009356
Application 13/220,238
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20. Claim 12 has been cancelled. (App.
Br. 19). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-009356
Application 13/220,238
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to determining a communications
path between a source device and a destination device. (Spec. i-f 1001 ).
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A processor-readable medium storing code representing
instructions that when executed at a processor cause the processor to:
identify a plurality of candidate output addresses from an
address range for an intermediate entity located between computing
devices;
provide a data packet to a candidate output address from the
plurality of candidate output addresses;
determine whether a response to the data packet was provided
from an input address of that intermediate entity; and
define the candidate output address as an output address of the
intermediate entity if the response to the data packet was provided
from the input address of the intermediate entity.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, 13-17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lu et al. (US
2007/0266125 Al; published Nov. 15, 2007) and Papadimitriou (US
2007 /0076725 Al; published Apr. 5, 2007).
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lu, Papadimitriou, and Zheng et al.
(US 2008/0002610 Al; published Jan. 3, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-009356
Application 13/220,238
Claims 6, 7, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Lu, Papadimitriou, and
Jorgenson et al. (US. 2005/0232227 Al; published Oct. 20, 2005).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lu and
Papadimitriou teaches or suggests an "intermediate entity located between
computing devices," and "define the candidate output address as an output
address of the intermediate entity if the response to the data packet was
provided from the input address of the intermediate entity," as recited in
independent claim 1?
Appellant contends Lu's responsive requests are limited to end
devices, not intermediate entities. (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2).
Specifically, Appellant contends Lu merely describes responsively querying
various end devices, such as computer 120a, at known addresses. (App. Br.
12, citing Lu i-fi-197-98). Appellant further argues Lu's responsive requests
sent to such end devices "do not imply that 'an address in the response
request packet indicated the address of the node (i.e., intermediate node)'."
(App. Br. 11 ). Appellant also contends that although Papadimitrou mentions
intermediate nodes, it is silent regarding "candidate output addresses."
(App. Br. 13).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings. (Final Act. 2-11; Ans. 10-17). Initially, we agree
with the Examiner that the network address (i.e., candidate output address)
described in Lu can be used for end nodes or intermediate nodes. (See Ans.
10-11). For example, Lu describes "[t]he devices 110, 120, 130 found at
3
Appeal2014-009356
Application 13/220,238
various locations around the network 100 may be referred to as network
nodes." (Lu i-f 40, emphasis added). Device 130 is described as a router.
(Lu i-f 39). Appellants' Specification describes that a router may be an
intermediate entity. (Spec. i-f 1014). Lu repeatedly refers to these "network
nodes," which includes intermediate entities, such as routers, throughout the
specification, including in paragraph 17, which describes "[t]he responsive
request causes the network nodes to correct the address tables of the network
nodes to include an address for the node which is identified in the responsive
request from the node." (Lu i-f 17). Paragraphs 97 and 98, relied upon by
Appellant, merely describe one embodiment, or example, of a device. (See
Lu i-f 97 (" ... the determined IP address device (e.g., computer 120a, which
for the purposes of this discussion will be used as the so-called 'determined
IP address device,' ip_A"). Accordingly, we are not persuaded Lu is limited
to end devices, as Appellant argues.
However, as noted by the Examiner, Lu does not explicitly describe
the identification of an address for an intermediate nodes, and the Examiner
relies on Papadimitriou to teach or suggest intermediate entities and the
determination of their network addresses. (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3, 11 ). While
Appellant admits Papadimitriou describes "intermediate nodes," Appellant
contends Papadimitriou is silent regarding the "candidate output address."
(App. Br. 13). However, we agree with the Examiner that Lu teaches or
suggests the "candidate output address," and that Papdimitriou discloses the
determination of network addresses for an intermediate node along a
communication path. (See Ans. 10-11).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the rejections of independent claims 10 and
4
Appeal2014-009356
Application 13/220,238
13, which recite substantially similar limitations, and dependent claims 2-9,
11, 14--20, which were not argued separately.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 and
13-20 is affirmed. 1
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
1 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider
whether claims 1 and 13 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter, due to their recital of a "processor-
readable medium." See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, (PTAB
May 8, 2013) (precedential).
5