Ex Parte Eli et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 25, 2011

10184486 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 25, 2011)

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.
10/184,486 06/28/2002 Eldad Bar Eli 09273 2920
26327 7590 02/25/2011
THE LAW OFFICE OF KIRK D. WILLIAMS
PO BOX 39425
DENVER, CO 80239-0425
EXAMINER
MILLS, DONALD L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ELDAD BAR ELI and DORON OZ
____________

Appeal 2009-008500
Application 10/184,486
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304 or for filing a request for rehearing as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008500
Application 10/184,486

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-12, 15-21, 24-30, and 33. Claims 13, 14, 22, 23, 31, and 32 have been
canceled. (App Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to methods and an apparatus for sending
a multicast packet from multiple network interfaces across multiple
networks using the same media access source address (MAC source address)
for at least two of the interfaces. (Abstract.)
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as
follows:
1. An apparatus for sending multicast packets over a plurality of
networks, the apparatus comprising:
a processing element; and
a plurality of network interfaces coupled to the processing
element, each of the plurality of network interfaces coupled to one of
the plurality of networks;
wherein the processing element is configured to generate and
initiate sending of a multicast packet including a same media access
source address (MAC source address) from at least two of the
plurality of network interfaces.

Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-12,
15-21, 24-30, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Fenner (US 5,095,480) because the relied on portion in columns 16-18 of
Fenner “teaches that a station can send a multicast packet from a single
Appeal 2009-008500
Application 10/184,486

3
interface to multiple stations on the same shared media/network. A media
access controller (MAC) is only connected to a single network.” (App. Br.
10.) Appellants further refer to Fenner’s disclosure in Figures 2 and 4 and
columns 15 and 16, and conclude that the reference does not teach sending
multicast packets including the same MAC source address because “ . . .
Fenner teaches that each of Media Access Controllers 40, 42, 44 and 46
receive the information (e.g., IP layer packet) that is to be sent out, create
their own MAC packets from this data, and send out their respectively
created packets out their single network interface.” (Reply Br. 6.)
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims as being obvious because
Fenner fails to teach or suggest sending multicast packets including the same
MAC source address, as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants present arguments as to why the Examiner has erred.
(App. Br. 9-15.) We agree with Appellants’ contentions above.
We understand the Examiner’s position to be that preserving a source
address at the IP layer as the multicast packet spans multiple networks,
which is taught in columns 16-18 of Fenner, meets the claimed feature of
sending a multicast packet including a same media access source address
(MAC source address) from at least two of the plurality of network
interfaces. See Ans. 11-12. As stated by Appellants (Reply Br. 6), each of
Media Access Controllers 40, 42, 44, and 46 in Figure 2 has a single
outgoing interface for sending individually created MAC layer packets.
Therefore, we agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 6) that no processing
Appeal 2009-008500
Application 10/184,486

4
element has been identified in Fenner that sends multicast packets including
the same MAC source address because the controllers 40, 42, 44, and 46
receive the packet that is to be sent out and send their own individually
created MAC packets from a single network interface. See Fig. 2; col. 16, ll.
19-41.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious because
Fenner fails to teach or suggest sending multicast packets including the same
MAC source address, as recited in claim 1. Other independent claims 6, 15,
24, and 33, include a limitation similar to that recited in claim 1, which was
discussed above and determined not to be taught or suggested by Fenner.
Therefore, the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 6, 15, 24, and
33, as well as claims 2-5, 7-12, 16-21, and 25-30 dependent thereon, cannot
be sustained.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12, 15-21, 24-30, and 33
is reversed.

REVERSED

babc

THE LAW OFFICE OF KIRK D. WILLIAMS
PO BOX 39425
DENVER, CO 80239-0425