Ex Parte Chen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13550328 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/550,328
22913 7590
Workman Nydegger
60 East South Temple
Suite 1000
07/16/2012
09/21/2016
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xiaobao Chen
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.
18570.186.1 1063
EXAMINER
REDDIV ALAM, SRINIV ASAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
Docketing@wnlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOBAO CHEN
Appeal2015-003001
Application 13/550,328
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Orange SA. App. Br.
3.
Appeal2015-003001
Application 13/550,328
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to supporting mobile internet protocol
(MIP) networks. Spec. 1. Specifically, Appellant's invention relates to
introducing a
mobile home agent (MHA) in a foreign network (FN) [that] acts
as an intermediate node between a mobile node (MN) and a
correspondent node (CN) and allocates itself a secondary care-of
address (SCoA) different from the care-of address (CoA) of the
mobile node (MN), with a one-to-one relationship between the
secondary care-of address (SCoA) and the home address
(HAddr) of the mobile node.
Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method of operating an intermediate network entity
between a mobile node in a foreign network and a correspondent
node, the method comprising:
allocating to the mobile node a care-of address within the
foreign network;
allocating a secondary care-of address to the intermediate
network entity;
receiving, in a session between the correspondent node
and the mobile node, at least one session packet in a tunnel from
a home agent in a home network of the mobile node to the
intermediate network entity, wherein the session packet has the
secondary care-of address as the destination address;
decapsulating the session packet; and
forwarding the decapsulated session packet to the mobile
node.
2
Appeal2015-003001
Application 13/550,328
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Soliman, Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Mobility Management
(HMIPv6), June, 2003 and Jung (US 2002/0015396 Al, Feb. 7, 2002).
2. Claims 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite for failing to claim a structure to perform the
claimed steps.
ANALYSIS
I. Rejection of Claims 1-13 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Soliman teaches or suggests "allocating a
secondary care-of address to the intermediate network entity," as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Soliman 9 and 19). Specifically, the Examiner
finds Soliman's Mobility Anchor Point ("MAP") teaches the claimed
"intermediate network entity" and that the Regional Care-of Address
("RCoA") teaches the claimed "secondary care-of address" ("SCoA"). Final
Act. 3.
Appellant argues "Soliman does not teach an intermediate network
entity that is allocated a SCoA." App. Br. 12. According to the Appellant,
the RCoA is not the claimed SCoA because "the RCoA is allocated to the
MN [mobile node] and is not allocated to an intermediate network entity."
Id.
We agree with the Appellant. Soliman discloses that the "RCoA is an
address obtained by the mobile node from the visited network." Soliman 3
(emphasis added). The RCoA is formed by the mobile node using the
MAP' s global IP address. Soliman 10. Once the mobile node forms the
3
Appeal2015-003001
Application 13/550,328
RCoA it "will first need to register with a ivIAP by sending it a BU
containing its Home Address an on-link address (LCoA). The Home
address used in the BU is the RCoA." Soliman 7. Further, Soliman
discloses that a "mobile node has two addresses, an RCoA on the MAP's
link and an on-link CoA (LCoA)." Soliman 10. Thus, we agree with
Appellants that Soliman teaches that the mobile node forms its own RCoA
and this RCoA, contrary to the Examiner's findings, is allocated to the
mobile node and not the MAP.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6, which contains
substantially the same limitation and was rejected under substantially the
same basis. See Final Act. 6 (citing Soliman 9 and 19). Finally, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-5 and 7-13 which depend
from one of claims 1 or 6, for the same reasons.
II. Rejection of Claims 11 and 13 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second
Paragraph
Claim 11 recites2 "A hardware apparatus configured to perform the
method of claim 1." App. Br. 17 (Claims App'x.). Claim 13 similarly
recites "A hardware apparatus configured to perform the method of claim
6." Id. The Examiner rejects these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
2 In the case of further prosecution, the Examiner is encouraged to determine
whether claims 11 and 13 depend from claims 1 and 6 respectively, and if
so, whether they comply with the requirements of (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C.,
fourth paragraph. Further, the Examiner is encouraged to determine whether
claims 11 and 13, if interpreted as means-plus-function claims, recite only a
single means (the "apparatus") and are therefore improper under (pre-AIA)
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
4
Appeal2015-003001
Application 13/550,328
paragraph, as "claiming apparatus without having structure to incorporate
the steps of claims 1 and 6 respectively and the specification does not
disclose the specific structures capable of performing the steps of methods of
claims 1 and 6." Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds the "specification
discloses no corresponding algorithm" for a general purpose computer
sufficient to disclose adequate structure to satisfy the requirements of 3 5
U.S.C. § 112. Id. (citing Aristocrat Tech. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int'! Game
Tech., 521F.3d1328, 1337-1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Appellants argue that "the functions [of method claim 1] may be
performed by computer programs executed at the CN, HA, MHA, and MN
[(i.e., network nodes and agents)] by suitably arranged apparatus including
hardware, firmware and/or software." App. Br. 14. According to
Appellants "the example embodiments of at least Figure 4a-8b and
associated disclosure provide ample description of algorithms
implementable by a skilled artisan on a suitable hardware apparatus." App.
Br. 15.
We agree with Appellants that Figures 4a-8b and their associated
description would provide sufficient disclosure of an algorithm to one of
ordinary skill in the art. For example, Figure 4a, which corresponds to the
first of five disclosed embodiments, illustrates a time diagram showing the
sequence of messages and data to send to register the mobile node with the
MHA, and the subsequent sequence which data follows when sent from the
CN to the MN via a tunnel. The accompanying description of the first
embodiment explains the process of sending packets between the various
network nodes in a step by step manner and also describes how the packets
should be addressed and encapsulated. Spec. 6-7. One of ordinary skill in
5
Appeal2015-003001
Application 13/550,328
the art would have understood this to be sufficient disclosure of an algorithm
to be implemented by the processors of the CN, HA, MHA, and the MN.
The Examiner has, therefore, not established that the Specification lacks a
corresponding algorithm disclosing sufficient structure for the claims.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection, as indefinite,
of claims 11 and 13.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
REVERSED
6