Ex Parte Bahren et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 14, 201209892783 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 14, 2012) Copy Citation 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. 09/892,783 06/27/2001 Frank Bahren Westphal.6313 9614 50811 7590 03/14/2012 O''Shea Getz P.C. 1500 MAIN ST. SUITE 912 SPRINGFIELD, MA 01115 EXAMINER CHANKONG, DOHM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2452 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte FRANK BAHREN, JOACHIM WIETZKE, HARALD SCHOPP, JOACHIM BISCHOFF, DIRK LAPPE, and STEFAN WOLF _____________ Appeal 2009-012284 Application 09/892,783 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, DENISE M. POTHIER, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 7, 10-14, 18-23, and 25.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. 1 Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 15-17, and 24 were previously cancelled. Appeal 2009-012284 Application 09/892,783 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and system for generating a second address for devices in a second network so that the devices can communicate with devices in a first network. Abstract. Claim 7 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 7. In a first network which can be linked to a second network, the first network including a plurality of network devices linked with one another and having an associated first address for unique identification in the first network, a method for generating a second address for each device comprising: manipulating the first address of each device by mathematically summing a predetermined number and the first address to derive the second address which is the sum of the first address and the predetermined number, the second address uniquely identifying each such device in the second network, the second address being different than the first address. REFERENCES Koning US 5,371,868 Dec. 6, 1994 Ford US 6,101,499 Aug. 8, 2000 Inoue US 6,163,843 Dec. 19, 2000 MOST Cooperation, “MOST Specification Framework Rev 1.1, Version 1.1-07” 1999, pg. 1-60. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 7, 10, 12, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ford and Koning. Ans. 4-6. Appeal 2009-012284 Application 09/892,783 3 Claims 11, 19, and 222 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ford, Koning, and MOST. Ans. 6-9. Claims 13, 21, 23, and 253 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ford, Koning, MOST, and Inoue. Ans. 7-10. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that Ford and Koning teach or suggest deriving a second address from a first address and assigning both the first and second addresses to a single device? Did the Examiner err in determining that it would have been obvious to combine Ford and Koning? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. In addition, below we 2 For claim 22, the Examiner cites the references in a different order (i.e., MOST, Ford, and Kronig). However, the ordering of references in the rejection is insignificant in the Examiner’s obviousness determination. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961). 3 For claims 23 and 25, the order of the references differs from claims 13 and 21. See n. 2. Appeal 2009-012284 Application 09/892,783 4 highlight and address a few of the Examiner’s specific findings and Appellants’ arguments. Appellants’ main argument is that Koning assigns the first and second addresses to different devices. App. Br. 12. In doing so, Appellants are interpreting Koning’s ports within the bridge as different devices. App. Br. 12. However, the Examiner interprets Koning’s bridge as the device, not the bridge ports. Ans. 11. We agree with the Examiner and find this interpretation to be reasonable. Additionally, the Examiner finds that Koning’s bridge is a multi-port communication device comprising a plurality of ports. Ans. 12. Each of Koning’s ports is assigned a different address and is connected to a different network. Ans. 12-13. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Koning discloses a device, wherein an address can be assigned to one port in order to communicate with a first network, and a different port of the same device can be assigned a different address that allows the device to communicate with a second network. Additionally, Appellants argue that the improper interpretation of Koning as explained above prevents an obviousness determination and that, therefore, there is no motivation to combine Ford with Koning. App. Br. 9, 14. As indicated supra, we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that Koning teaches the disputed limitation. Also, we note that the Supreme Court stated that an explicitly stated motivation to combine the references is seen as a “helpful insight,” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, (2007), but that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Id. at 416. We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ford with Koning yields nothing more than just a Appeal 2009-012284 Application 09/892,783 5 predictable result, such as combining Koning with Ford would predictably improve Ford’s network device. See Ans. 12-13. For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 and claims 10-14, 18-23, and 25 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Ford and Koning teach or suggest deriving a second address from a first address and assigning both the first and second addresses to a single device. The Examiner did not err in determining that it would have been obvious to combine Ford and Koning. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7, 10-14, 18-23, and 25 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation