Ex Parte Cicchino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2016

12287907 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/287,907 10/14/2008 Domenic A. Cicchino
72623 7590 02/10/2016
MOSER TABOADA I VON AGE HOLDINGS CORP,
1030 BROAD STREET
SUITE 203
SHREWSBURY, NJ 07702
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.
V018 1211
EXAMINER
AHMED, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2016 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@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DOMENIC A. CICCHINO and LOUIS MAMAKOS
Appeal2013-003973
Application 12/287,907
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2013-003973
Application 12/287,907
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-21. Claims 4 and 15 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1, under appeal, with emphasis added
to the disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:
1. A method for fulfilling information requests in a network
comprising the steps of:
receiving a request from a first location in the network,
the request containing at least an identifier associated with the
request;
performing an operation on the identifier, wherein a
result from the operation indicates a second location for routing
the request where the request can be fulfilled, wherein the
operation comprises at least one of identifYing a value, based
on the identifier, to alter a base IP address associated with the
second location, or identifYing a value, based on the identifier,
for offsetting a previously known or fixed value associated with
the second location; and
executing the request based on the value indicative of the
second location.
Examiner's Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-21 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Inoue (US 2003/0108052 Al;
published June 12, 2003), Jarvis (US 6,980,521 Bl; issued Dec. 27, 2005),
and Xu (US 2009/0222558 Al; published Sept. 3, 2009). Final Act. 2-5.
2
Appeal2013-003973
Application 12/287,907
Issues on Appeal1
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7-11)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2---6), the following issues are presented on
appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16 and 18-
21 as being obvious over the combination of Inoue, Jarvis, and Xu because
the combination fails to teach or suggest "the operation comprises at least
one of identifying a value, based on the identifier, to alter a base IP address
associated with the second location, or identifying a value, based on the
identifier, for offsetting a previously known or fixed value associated with
the second location," as recited in representative independent claim 1, and as
similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 12?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting dependent claims 6 and 17 as
being obvious over the combination of Inoue, Jarvis, and Xu because the
combination fails to teach or suggest "the alternate location is at least one
level of network architecture hierarchy lower than the second location," as
recited in each respective claim?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 3)
1 Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16 and 18-21 as a group and present
detailed arguments on the merits only with respect to independent claim 1
(App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-5). Appellants rely on the arguments presented
for claim 1 as to the patentability of remaining independent claims 11 and 12
which contain similar features (App. Br. 19-20). Accordingly, we select
independent claim 1 as representative of the group of claims (claims 1-3, 5,
7-14, 16 and 18-21) rejected for obviousness over the combination of Inoue,
Jarvis, and Xu.
3
Appeal2013-003973
Application 12/287,907
in light of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7-11) and
the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-5) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the
Examiner's response (Ans. 3-7) to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal
Brief. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt
as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-5), and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-7). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of
Appellants' arguments as follows.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16and18-21
We agree with the Examiner as to representative claim 1 (Ans. 3---6)
that Inoue (i-fi-f 81 and 88-89) and Jarvis (col. 8, 11. 50-59) each teach or
suggest "identifying a value, based on the identifier, to alter a base IP
address associated with the second location," as required by representative
claim 1. Furthermore, Appellants have not responded to or refuted the
Examiner's additional citation to Jarvis (col. 8, 11. 50-59), which teaches or
suggests "identifying a value, based on the identifier, to alter a base IP
address associated with the second location." Therefore, Appellants have
not shown error in the Examiner's conclusion that the combination of Inoue,
Jarvis and Xu teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Claims 6 and 17
We further agree with the Examiner as to claims 6 and 17 (Ans. 6-7)
that Inoue teaches or suggests "the alternate location is at least one level of
network architecture hierarchy lower than the second location" because
4
Appeal2013-003973
Application 12/287,907
Figures 3, 4, and 14 and iii! 56, 58, and 150 disclose multiple layers in a
network hierarchy and because Appellants have not responded to or refuted
the Examiner's use of those additional citations in the Examiner's Answer.
Ans. 6-7; See Reply Br. 1-5.
Summary
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
representative claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 5, 7-14, 16 and 18-21under35
U.S.C. § 103(a). For similar reasons, and we also sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 17 (which also rely on the same
combination of Inoue, Jarvis, and Xu).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16
and 18-21 as being obvious over the combination of Inoue, Jarvis, and Xu
because the combination teaches or suggests "the operation comprises at
least one of identifying a value, based on the identifier, to alter a base IP
address associated with the second location," as recited in representative
independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 11 and
12.
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting dependent claims 6 and 17
as being obvious over the combination of Inoue, Jarvis, and Xu because the
combination teaches or suggests "the alternate location is at least one level
of network architecture hierarchy lower than the second location," as recited
in each respective claim.
5
Appeal2013-003973
Application 12/287,907
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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
JRG
6