Ex Parte Breau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11699656 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

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.
11/699,656 01/30/2007 Jeremy R. Breau 4495 7685
28005 7590 03/03/2014
SPRINT
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
KSOPHT0101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
EXAMINER
HONG, DUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2014 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
____________

Ex parte JEREMY R. BREAU and FREDERICK C. ROGERS
____________

Appeal 2011-009651
Application 11/699,656
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009651
Application 11/699,656

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 14 and 16-20. Claims 1-7 and 15 have been canceled.
Claims 8-13 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We affirm.

Illustrative Claim
14. A system comprising:
a home agent arranged to receive packets from a mobile node,
wherein each packet from the mobile node includes:
a payload,
an IPv6 header that defines a destination address field,
wherein the destination address field contains at least a first IP
address, wherein the first IP address is an IP address of the
home agent, and wherein the IPv6 header further defines a
source address field that contains a home address of the mobile
node, and a first IPv6 routing extension header defining a next-
hop field that contains a second IP address, wherein the second
IP address is an IP address of a correspondent node;
wherein the home agent is further arranged to read the
second IP address from the next-hop field, to substitute the
second IP address in place of the first address in the IPv6
header, and to remove the first IPv6 routing extension header
from the packet;
wherein the home agent is further arranged to receive
packets from the correspondent node, wherein each packet from
the correspondent node includes:
a payload, and
an IPv6 header that defines a destination address field,
wherein the destination address field contains at least a third IP
address, wherein the third IP address is the home address
of the mobile node;
wherein the home agent is further arranged to modify
each packet received from the node by adding to each packet a
Appeal 2011-009651
Application 11/699,656

3
second IPv6 routing extension header, the second routing
extension header defining a next-hop field that contains a fourth
IP address,
wherein the fourth IP address is the same as the third IP
address;
wherein the home agent is further arranged to correlate
the third IP address with a care-of address of the mobile node;
and
wherein the home agent is further arranged to replace the
third IP address with the care-of address of the mobile node.

Prior Art
Casati US 2001/0015966 A1 Aug. 23, 2001
Barany US 2002/0065081 A1 May 30, 2002
Khalil US 2003/0002468 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Korus US 2003/0095523 A1 May 22, 2003

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 14, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Casati, Korus, and Khalil.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Casati, Korus, Khalil, and Barany.

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of Casati, Korus, and Khalil does
not teach the “home agent is further arranged to modify each packet received
from the correspondent node by adding to each packet a second IPv6 routing
extension header, the second IPv6 routing extension header defining a next-
hop field that contains” the home address of the mobile node as recited in
claim 14. App. Br. 3-8; Reply Br. 2-3. Reading this limitation in light of
Appellants’ Specification, page 12 states that the home agent encapsulates
Appeal 2011-009651
Application 11/699,656

4
the packet by adding a routing extension header containing the mobile
node’s home address as the next hop. The home agent changes the header’s
destination address to the mobile node’s care of address. Spec. 12:14-20.
Casati teaches encapsulating a packet by changing the destination
address to the mobile node’s care of address. Fig. 2; ¶ 27. Casati also
teaches using extension headers to provide routing information. ¶¶ 29-34.
Khalil teaches encapsulating a packet with an outer header containing the
care of address as the destination address, and an inner header containing the
mobile node’s home address as the next hop address. Fig. 3; ¶¶ 51, 81-86.
Encapsulating a packet by adding routing information to an extension header
as taught by Casati, such as the mobile node’s home address as the next hop
address as taught by Khalil, represents the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods that does no more than yield the predictable
result of a packet having a care of address in the destination field, and the
mobile node’s home address in the next hop extension header.
Appellants further contend modifying Khalil to replace the mobile
node’s home address with the care of address using the teachings of Casati
and Korus renders Khalil inoperable for its intended purpose, because the
foreign agent would not know where to route the packet. App. Br. 8.
However, Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to
show that using the care of address, as the destination address, and the
mobile node’s home address, as the next hop addresses, as taught by Khalil
in the destination field and next hop extension header of Casati would
change the intended purpose of routing a data packet to the intended node
through an intermediate address.
Appeal 2011-009651
Application 11/699,656

5
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the final
rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer. We sustain
the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 14, 16, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Casati, Korus, and Khalil is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Casati, Korus, Khalil, and Barany 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

ke