Ex Parte Brown et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

11755804 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111755,804 05/31/2007
48916 7590
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment Blvd.
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
02/29/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
MICHAEL W. BROWN
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.
AUS920060383US 1 9752
EXAMINER
PATEL, CHIRAG R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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 MICHAEL W. BROWN, BRIAN K. HOWE,
RADHAKRISHNAN SETHURAMAN, and MANUAL SIL VEYRA
Appeal2014-002545
Application 11/755,804
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "a method for centrally assigning branch
specific network addresses in a domain host control protocol (DHCP)
environment." Abstract.
Appeal2014-002545
Application 11/755,804
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for controlling network address assignment, comprising:
receiving at a first computing device a network address assignment
request from a second computing device;
forwarding the network address assignment request to a central address
management server;
determining a set of address assignment parameters based upon a
feature, corresponding to a geographical location of the second computing
device with respect to a geographical location of a peripheral computing
device, of the network address assignment request and
assigning a first network address to the second computing device
based upon the set of address assignment parameters.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1--4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-17, 19, and 21-23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bajic (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2007 /0002833 Al; published January 4, 2007), Aalbers
(US Patent Number 7,103,040 B2; issued September 5, 2006), and Meade
(US Patent Number 6,678,750 B2; issued January 13, 2004). Answer 2-7.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bajic, Aalbers, Meade, and Erwin (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2006/0153206 Al; published July 13, 2006). Answer
7-8.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bajic, Aalbers, Meade, and Knapp (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2006/0218298 Al; published September 28, 2006).
Answer 8-9.
2
Appeal2014-002545
Application 11/755,804
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 10, 2013), the Answer (mailed
September 30, 2013), and the Final Rejection (mailed March 11, 2013) for
the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. 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, except where
noted.
Appellants contend that, "Although Meade may make a determination
of the location of peripheral devices with respect to a host computer, neither
Aabers nor Meade, alone or in combination, use this information to assign
an address to a device that is analogous to Appellants' second computing
device." Appeal Brief 8. Appellants further argue that "both Aalbers and
Meade assign an address to a device based only upon the device's location
and, therefore, neither, alone or in combination, suggest an assignment of
Appeallnats' [sic] second device on this type of information." Appeal Brief
8-9. Appellants contend, "The fact that Meade may calculate relative
positions is immaterial because Meade does not use the information in a
manner that is consistent with Appellants' claimed subject matter." Appeal
Brief9.
Claim 1 does not specify the feature used in determine the address
assignment parameters. Further, Appellants acknowledge the cited art
calculates geographical locations and assign addresses based upon the
3
Appeal2014-002545
Application 11/755,804
calculation of geographical locations. See Appeal Brief 9. Therefore, we do
not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because manipulating address
assignments according to geographical locations is well within the purview
an artisan skilled in the art. 1 See Answer 2--4. We sustain the Examiner's
obvious rejection of claim 1, as well as, independent claims 8 and 15
commensurate in scope. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 2--4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 21-23 not argued
separately. See Appeal Brief 10. We also sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of dependent claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 18, and 20 because
Appellants argue that neither Erwin nor Knapp address the deficiency of the
Bajic, Meade, and Aalbers combination however we did not find the
combination to be deficient. See Appeal Brief 11-12.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-23 are 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)(l ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(v) (2009).
AFIRMED
1 "As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
4