Ex Parte Cheshire

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

13590477 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

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.
13/590,477 08/21/2012 Stuart D. Cheshire APL-P3624USC2 1040
63975 7590 02/01/2017
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2469
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
e-office @ skgf.com
Apple-eOA @ skgf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STUART D. CHESHIRE
Appeal 2015-006227
Application 13/590,477
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JUSTIN BUSCH, and CARL L. SILVERMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 4—8, 11—15, and 18—21. Claims 3, 10, 17, and
22—24 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter, and
claims 2, 9, and 16 were cancelled. Final Act. 1, 6; App. Br. 3.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention determines whether a domain-name system
(DNS) server suffers from a particular functional limitation by sending an
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed April
28, 2014 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed October 30, 2014 (“Br.”);
and (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 6, 2015 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2015-006227
Application 13/590,477
exploratory query to the server, where the query is constructed to detect the
server’s functional limitation without causing the server to fail. See
generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for determining if a domain name system (DNS) server
is functionally limited, comprising:
generating an exploratory query that comprises a set of labels;
sending the exploratory query to the DNS server to detect a
functional limitation in the DNS server, the functional limitation causing the
DNS server to, based on reading less than all of the labels in the set of labels
in the exploratory query, send a response to the exploratory query;
receiving a response to the exploratory query from the DNS server;
and
when the response indicates that the functional limitation exists in
the DNS server, performing a remedial action.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5—8, 12—15, and 19-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Banga (US 7,426,576 Bl; Sept. 16,
2008) and Gross (US 2002/0073233 Al; June 13, 2002). Ans. 2-5.
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Banga, Gross, and Satapati (US 7,529,852 B2; May 5,
2009) . Ans. 5-6.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER BANGA AND GROSS
The Examiner finds that Banga’s method for determining if a DNS
server is functionally limited teaches every recited element of claim 1 except
2
Appeal 2015-006227
Application 13/590,477
for the detected functional limitation causing the DNS server to send a
response to the exploratory query based on reading less than all labels in that
query. Ans. 2—3. The Examiner, however, cites Gross as teaching this
feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3^4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Gross is misplaced
because Gross merely alters internet addresses by concatenating a compliant
top-level domain (TLD) name to addresses with non-compliant TLD names
to make those addresses compliant and resolvable by DNS servers. Br. 8—
11.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Banga and Gross collectively would have taught or suggested a detected
functional limitation of a DNS server causing that server to send a response
to an exploratory query based on reading less than all labels in that query
(“the response limitation”)?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s reliance on the primary
reference to Banga is undisputed, as is the cited references’ combinability.
Rather, as noted above, this dispute turns solely on the Examiner’s reliance
on Gross for teaching or suggesting claim 1 ’s response limitation.
Therefore, we confine our discussion to Gross.
As noted above, a key aspect of the response limitation is that it is
based on reading less than all labels in an exploratory query sent to a DNS
3
Appeal 2015-006227
Application 13/590,477
server. “Labels” in this context are groups of characters separated by
periods in a domain name. Spec. 134.
In the rejection, the Examiner finds that Gross’ system sends a
response indicating an error based on reading the TLD. Ans. 3. Notably,
the Examiner finds that if the TLD is unrecognized in step 244 of Gross’
Figure 2b, a Name Space Provider (NSP) sends a negative response without
examining the entire internet address, namely “www.idealab.inc.new.net.”
Ans. 7—9 (citing Gross H 41—43, 46, 50; Fig. 2b).
To be sure, Gross’ “New.net” NSP receives a modified internet
address in step 242 of Figure 2b, namely “www.idealab.inc.new.net”—an
address with the suffix “new.net” appended to the originally-entered
“www.idealab.inc” address in step 216 of Figure 2a. See Gross 1149-53.
But the determination in step 244 of Figure 2b is based solely on whether the
TLD is in a list and, if not, a negative response is sent in step 246. This
determination, then, at least suggests that less than all labels, namely only
those associated with the TED—not the entire address—are read and used as
a basis for sending the associated negative response. Appellant’s arguments
regarding Gross’ alleged shortcomings involving address translation (Br. 8—
11) do not squarely address—let alone persuasively rebut—the Examiner’s
findings based on the TFD-based functionality in Gross’s Figure 2b noted
above.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 5—8, 12—15, and 19-21 not argued separately with
particularity.
4
Appeal 2015-006227
Application 13/590,477
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4, 11,
and 18. Ans. 5—6. Appellant reiterates similar arguments made in
connection with claim 1 (see Br. 7, 11) that we find unpersuasive for the
reasons previously discussed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4—8, 11—15, and 18—21
under § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4—8, 11—15, and 18—21 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5