Ex Parte Dawson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2016

13243357 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/243,357 09/23/2011
21028 7590 11/09/2016
Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP
160 ELGIN STREET
SUITE 2600
OTTA WA, ON KIP 1C3
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey William DAWSON
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.
86503-324C 2002
EXAMINER
EBRAHIM, ANEZ C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2016 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):
Patprosec@gowlingwlg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY WILLIAM DAWSON
Appeal2015-004332
Application 13/243,357
Technology Center 2400
Before 1\1ICHAEL J. STF~AUSS, HlJNG H. BUI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-004332
Application 13/243,357
STATE~v1ENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 27-31,
41, 43--46, 59, 63 and 64. 1 Claims 5-15, 18-21, 24, 26, 32--40, 42,
47-58, and 60-62 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to differentiated priority level
communications. Spec., Title. Claims 1 and 59, reproduced below,
are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
a. receiving priority information from a trusted
source, the priority information being indicative of
an association between at least one identifier and a
respective priority level;
t... ,..l • • • 1 • ,..l • -I': • ,..l • t...
u. uetermmmg a part1cu1ar iuent111er associateu w1t11
data received from a communication entity, the
particular identifier having been previously
provided to the communication entity by the
trusted source and being time-varying, the at least
one identifier including the particular identifier;
c. determining a particular priority level associated
with the data based on the particular identifier and
the priority information;
d. prioritizing at least a portion of the data on a basis
of the particular priority level; and
1 The Examiner erroneously omits claims 25, 59, and 64 from the
listing of rejected claims appearing in the Disposition of Claims
section of the Final Action. Final Act. 1. Furthermore, although
multiple pending and canceled claims are included in the list of claims
withdrawn from consideration, we find no indication that any claims
fall into such category. Id.
2
Appeal2015-004332
Application 13/243,357
e. forwarding at least the portion of the data over a
data network.
59. A method for transmitting data for transport over a
network, comprising the steps of:
conveying a request for an identifier associated with a
priority level to a server that provides priority
information to a network access component, the
priority information being indicative of an
association between a plurality of identifiers and
respective priority levels;
receiving a particular identifier from the server in
response to the request, the plurality of identifiers
including the particular identifier;
generating data for transmission over a data network;
and
transmitting the data along with the particular identifier
to the network access component for prioritization
by the network access component.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims
on appeal is:
Headley
Kohno
Anand
Tan
Inamura
Zeldin
Matthews
Yasrebl
US 2002/0194260 Al
US 2005/0262258 Al
US 2006/0133418 Al
US 2007 /0002837 Al
US 2007/0204316 Al
US 2007 /0268506 Al
US 2008/0124086 Al
US 2009/0296566 Al
3
Dec. 19, 2002
Nov. 24, 2005
June 22, 2006
Jan.4,2007
Aug.30,2007
Nov. 22, 2007
May 29, 2008
Dec. 3, 2009
Appeal2015-004332
Application 13/243,357
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claim 1--4, 22, 23, 25, 27-31, 41, 43, and44--46 stand
provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 6-9, 14, 25, 26,
28, 30, 31, 36, 38--40, 44, 48, 50-53 2 of copending Application No.
12/343,758.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 16, 17, 22, 23, 28-30, 41, 43, 45, and 46 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Anand
and Yasrebl. Final Act. 14--19.
Claims 3 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anand, Yasrebl, and Kohno. Final Act. 19-21.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anand, Y asrebl, and Zeldin. Final Act. 21.
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anand, Yasrebl, and Matthews. Final Act. 21-22.
Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anand, Yasrebl, and Headley. Final Act. 22-23.
Claims 59 and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anand and Inamura. Final Act. 23-24. 3
2 We observe the listing of claims of the '758 application forming the
basis of the provisional double patenting rejection (Ans. 3) is
inconsistent with the claims listed in in the Claim Comparison Table
(Ans. 4--12.) In particular, the list of claims of the '758 application (i)
includes claim 27 which does not appear in the Table and (ii) omits
claim 31 which does appear in the table. Furthermore the listing
incorrectly includes claims "50--43" instead of "50-53."
3 We note the Final Rejection formally indicates that "Claim 63 is
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Anand in
4
Appeal2015-004332
Application 13/243,357
Claim 63 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anand, Inamura, and Tan. Final Act. 24--25.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of
Appellant's arguments the Examiner has erred. We agree with
Appellant's conclusions regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 28
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). However, in connection with the rejection of
claim 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we disagree with Appellant's
conclusions and we 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. 23-25) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 7-9)
and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following for emphasis.
Provisional Double Patenting Rejection
We note Appellant has not presented any arguments challenging
the propriety or the substance of the rejection of claims 1--4, 22, 23, 25,
27-31, 41, 43, and 44--46 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting. Final Act. 3-13. Thus, any such
arguments are deemed to be waived and we summarily sustain the
view of [Inamura ]" rather than claims 59 and 64 which are
substantively addressed immediately therebelow. Final Act. 23. We
find the error in listing claim 63 instead of claims 59 and 64 to be
harmless.
5
Appeal2015-004332
Application 13/243,357
provisional double patenting rejection. See Ilyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d
1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
The 35 US.C. § 103(a) Rejections
Claims 1 and 28
The Examiner finds the "trusted source" recited in claim 1, is
taught or suggested by Anand's TCP/IP network 102; by which filter
440 of server 400 receives both (a) priority information by providing
for a network administrator to associate an IP address received from
network 102 with a priority and (b) IP source address information from
a client 108. Final Act. 14; Ans. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner
"notes that the trusted source is broad enough that it does not
necessarily read on [a] single device but [also on a] larger entity[,] in
this case[,] the network." Ans. 4.
Appellant contends "[a] key question is whether the cited
combination of references teaches that the source of the priority
information for prioritizing data from a given client is also the entity
that assigns the identifier to that client." App. Br. 9. Appellant argues
"a collection of worldwide networks and gateways cannot be
considered a trusted source." Reply Br. 4.
We agree with Appellant. A source is "a place or thing from
which something comes or derives; point of origin."4 For example,
Appellant's Specification discloses "server 120 serves as a trusted
source of information to the network access component 105." Spec.
4 Morris, W., The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language. 1235. Houghton Mifflin Company (1981).
6
Appeal2015-004332
Application 13/243,357
11: 11-12. That is, server 120 is a particular node on the network, not
the entirety of the network including all nodes and communication
links. Thus, the Examiner's interpretation concluding "the trust[ed]
source is the network itself' (Ans. 4) is unduly broad and inconsistent
with the Specification.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1under35U.S.C.§103(a) and, for the
same reason, do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 28,
which includes similar limitations. Furthermore, based on their
dependencies from claim 1, we do not sustain the rejections of claims
2--4, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, and 27 and, based on their dependencies from
claim 28, we do not sustain rejections of claims 29-31, 41, and 43--46
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). We note Appellant raises additional
contentions of error but we do not reach them as our resolution of this
contention is dispositive of the appealed rejections of claims 1--4, 16,
17, 22-25, 28-31, 41, and 43--46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 59
Appellant contends Anand and Inamura fail to teach or suggest
"conveying a request for an identifier associated with a priority level,"
as required by claim 59. App. Br. 15. Appellant argues"[ Inamura,] at
best[,] discloses that 'the monitoring station transmits an identifier of
the monitoring camera 101 to each gateway' [0026]." App. Br. 14.
Appellant further argues
Inamura teaches that a monitoring station may transmit an
identifier to a monitoring camera; Inamura also teaches
that the monitoring station may separately transmit a
7
Appeal2015-004332
Application 13/243,357
message to the gateway "together with a video data request
of the monitoring camera" (see i-f0035). Thus, even if
Inamura were somehow interpreted as requesting an
identifier, Inamura would still fail to teach conveying a
request for an identifier associated with a priority level, as
Inamura's identifier is not at all associated with a priority
level.
App. Br. 15 (footnote omitted.)
The Examiner responds by finding;
Anand teaches in Para [0045---0047], rece1vmg at the
interface server a request, in response to the request[,]
getting the response as an IP address [that] is received from
the server and [the] server store [ s] the IP address in the
filter list, wherein the server stores the IP address and
priority information and receiving at the interface server of
the a data to be forwarded over a data network.
Ans. 7. The Examiner further finds "Imamura in Para [0034-0035]
[0056], teaches [the] system includes a wireless monitoring camera,
and network, when [the] wireless monitoring camera connects to the
wireless network [it requests] a wireless identifier in the network and
priority identifier, when the network receives this request." Ans. 9.
Appellant's contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Imamura discloses gateway 122 sends message 422 containing a data
request, priority level, and IP address thereby teaching or suggesting an
identifier associated with a priority level and Anand teaches or
suggests receiving a particular identifier in response to a request. Final
Act. 23. Thus, the combination of Anand and Imamura teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
8
Appeal2015-004332
Application 13/243,357
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, in the absence of persuasive
rebuttal to the Examiner's findings, including the Examiner's Response
to Appellant's arguments, Appellant's contention of error is
unpersuasive and we sustain the rejection of claim 59 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) together with the rejections of dependent claims 63 and 64
which are not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to provisionally reject claims 1--4, 22,
23, 25, 27-31, 41, 43, and 44--46 on the ground ofnonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1, 6-9, 14, 25, 26, 28,
30, 31, 36, 38--40, 44, 48, and 50-53 of co-pending Application No.
12/343,758 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25,
27-31, 41, and 43--46 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 59, 63, and 64 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-IN-PART
9