Ex Parte Chakra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2013

11415674 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AL CHAKRA, DAVID KAMINSKY, and DAVID M. OGLE

___________

Appeal 2010-008263
Application 11/415,674
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008263
Application 11/415,674

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28. Claims 23, 26, and 29 have
been indicated to be allowable if rewritten in independent form and
claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is related to determining whether predefined
data is replicated to a client machine. A request is received for predefined
data from a client machine. The requested predefined data is replicated if
the client machine is at an acceptable location and replication of the
predefined data is prevented if the client machine is at an unacceptable
location. (Abstract; Spec. ¶ [0002].)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method of determining whether predefined data
controlled by a server is replicated to a client machine comprising:
receiving a request for said predefined data from said client
machine;
tracing a route information packets take to reach said client
machine from said server;
determining if said client machine is at an acceptable location to
receive said predefined data using said traced route;
replicating said requested predefined data to said client
machine if said client machine is at an acceptable location and
preventing replication of said predefined data to said client machine if
said client machine is at an unacceptable location.

Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Bade (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
Appeal 2010-008263
Application 11/415,674

3
2002/0138632 Al; Sept. 26, 2002) and Silverman (U.S. Patent No. 6,804,624
B2; Oct. 12, 2004).
Claims 21, 24, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Bade, Silverman, and Elbatt (U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2005/0152318 Al; July 14, 2005).
Claims 22, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Bade, Silverman, and Sprosts (U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2007/0220607 A1; Sept. 20, 2007).

ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection – Bade and Silverman
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 12-17) that the
combination of Bade and Silverman would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitations “tracing a route
information packets take to reach said client machine from said server” and
“replicating said requested predefined data to said client machine if said
client machine is at an acceptable location.”
The Examiner found that the remote client 104 of Bade corresponds to
the claimed “client machine” and that the host server 106 of Bade
corresponds to the claimed “server.” (Ans. 3, 8; Bade, fig. 2.) The
Examiner also found that the host server 106 that performs positional
authentication corresponds to “replicating said requested predefined data to
said client machine if said client machine is at an acceptable location.”
(Ans. 3; Bade, ¶ [0030].) The Examiner acknowledged that Bade does not
disclose the limitation “tracing a route information packets take to reach said
client machine from said server” and thus, relied upon Silverman for
Appeal 2010-008263
Application 11/415,674

4
teaching trace route commands. (Ans. 4; Silverman, col. 7, ll. 1-5.) The
Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to use trace
route as taught by Silverman in Bade’s location identification system, in
order to allow determination of a position of a client’s machine even at the
very poor weather conditions.” (Ans. 4.) We agree with the Examiner.
Bade relates to “providing positional authentication for client-server
systems.” (¶ [0002].) Figure 2 of Bade illustrates an extranet 210 that
includes a remote client 104 (i.e., the claimed “client machine”) and a host
server 106 (i.e., the claimed “server”) (¶ [0024]) and a receiver module 212
(¶ [0025]), such that “the receiver module 212 receives positional data from
the wireless positioning system indicating the remote client’s position”
(¶ [0028]). “[T]he host server 106 performs positional authentication to
determine whether access should be granted or denied, and if granted, what
level of access is allowed and whether an additional or special password is
required.” (¶ [0030].) Therefore, Bade teaches the limitation “replicating
said requested predefined data to said client machine if said client machine
is at an acceptable location.”
Silverman relates to “monitoring and analyzing any communications
network . . . for the purpose of determining the location of remote devices.”
(Col. 1, ll. 17-22.) In a preferred embodiment, Figure 2 of Silverman
illustrates a communications network and network evaluation system (col. 5,
ll. 55-57), including “test device 74, 76, 78 [that] employs a trace route
command, such as the TCP/IP network Traceroute command, in order to
determine the number of routers along the end-to-end path 81, 83, 85,
respectively, from itself to the target device 72” (col. 7, ll. 1-5). Silverman
further explains that exemplary embodiments “determin[e] the physical
Appeal 2010-008263
Application 11/415,674

5
location of a target device which is operable indoors, in poor weather, and in
downtown and other areas where there are line of sight obstructions.”
(Col. 12, ll. 15-18.) Therefore, Silverman teaches the limitation “tracing a
route information packets take to reach said client machine from said
server.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the TCP/IP network Traceroute command of Silverman, with
the client-server systems of Bade that includes positional authentication,
would improve Bade by providing the ability to determine physical location
in poor weather conditions. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007). Similarly, combining Silverman with Bade is no more than the
simple substitution of the TCP/IP network Traceroute command of
Silverman for the receiver module 212 of Bade that receives positional data,
to yield predictable results. See id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 4) that modifying Bade to include the TCP/IP network Traceroute
command of Silverman would have been obvious.
Appellants argue that “in Silverman, the trace route command is
implemented between the test stations 74, 76, 78 and the client station 78,
and not from the management station 70 to the client station 72” and
accordingly, Silverman does not teach the limitation “tracing a route
information packets take to reach said client machine from said server.”
(Br. 15.) However, the Examiner cited to Bade, rather than Silverman, for
teaching the claimed “client machine” and the claimed “server.” (Ans. 3, 8.)
Appellants also argue that “one skilled in the art, reviewing Bade and
Silverman, would not have recognized that combining these teachings would
have resulted in a predictable result of tracing a route information packets
Appeal 2010-008263
Application 11/415,674

6
take to reach a client machine from a server.” (Br. 16.) Appellants further
argue:
Nor does the office action provide an explanation based on
sound technical reasoning that would support a conclusion that
those skilled in the art would have considered it obvious to
trace a route information packets take to reach a client machine
from a server so as to determine if a client machine is at an
acceptable location to receive predefined data and then
replicating the requested predefined date to the client machine
if the client machine is at an acceptable location.
(Id. (emphasis omitted).) Similarly, Appellants argue “that Bade and
Silverman, either when considered alone or in combination, fail to teach or
suggest a subsequent step that utilizes the traced route from the server to the
client machine that Bade and Silverman fail to teach or suggest.” (Br. 17.)
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, as discussed previously, the combination
of Bade and Silverman is based on the improvement of a similar device in
the same way as in the prior art or alternatively, based on the simple
substitution of one known element for another. Because both Bade and
Silverman are directed toward similar technology related to the location of a
client device, such a combination would yield predictable results.
Furthermore, as also discussed previously, Bade teaches the limitation
“replicating said requested predefined data to said client machine if said
client machine is at an acceptable location.”
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Bade and
Silverman would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitations tracing a route information packets take to reach said
client machine from said server” and “replicating said requested predefined
data to said client machine if said client machine is at an acceptable
location.”
Appeal 2010-008263
Application 11/415,674

7
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to this claim. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same
reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recites limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 15, as well as dependent claim 14, for
the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

§ 103 Rejection – Bade, Silverman, and Elbatt
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 21, 24, and 27 separately (Br. 17-18), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that claims 21,
24, and 27 are patentable because “Elbatt does not fill the voids of Bade and
Silverman discussed above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.” (Br. 18.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with
respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, from which claims 21, 24, and 27 depend.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

§ 103 Rejection – Bade, Silverman, and Sprosts
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 22, 25, and 28 separately (Br. 18-19), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
Appeal 2010-008263
Application 11/415,674

8
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that claims 22,
25, and 28 are patentable because “Sprosts does not fill the voids of Bade
and Silverman discussed above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.”
(Br. 18.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed
with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, from which claims 22, 25, and 28
depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24,
25, 27, and 28 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

ELD