Ex Parte Frydman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2017

13739067 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 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.
13/739,067 01/11/2013 Daniel Nathan Frydman SGN-PU-007-US1 3446
60956 7590 12/04/2017
Professional Patent Solutions;
EXAMINER
P.O. BOX 654 ALLEN, NICHOLAS E
HERZELIYA PITUACH, 46105
ISRAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2017 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):
office @propats .com
vsherman @ propats, com
utalmi@propats.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL NATHAN FRYDMAN and LIOR FITE
Appeal 2017-008057
Application 13/739,0671
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-12, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Saguna Networks Ltd.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-008057
Application 13/739,067
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to a domain name system (DNS) for
providing domain name resolution. Spec. ^ 2. In particular, a zone-specific
domain name system (ZSDNS) may provide location-specific responses to DNS
queries based on the location of the client device accessing the ZSDNS. Spec.
^ 36. ZSDNS control logic circuitry can detect a query and search a local DNS
database cache for a DNS record that provides a resolution to the detected query,
while concurrently forwarding the query or allowing the query to pass to a remote
DNS server. Spec. ^ 37. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A zone specific domain name system (ZSDNS) associated with
an access point of a data access network, said system comprising:
a DNS query detector communicatively coupled to the access
point and adapted to detect DNS queries, addressed to a remote DNS
server, submitted by a data client device through said access point,
wherein the DNS query detector is located in a different location from
the remote DNS server;
control logic circuitry to search a local DNS cache for records
relevant or responsive to the submitted query while allowing the
submitted query to pass to the remote DNS server; and
a DNS query responder adapted to respond to the DNS query of
the data client device in the event records relevant or responsive to the
submitted query are identified in said local cache.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Plamondon (US 2008/0228772 Al; Sept. 18, 2008). Final Act. 2-9.
2
Appeal 2017-008057
Application 13/739,067
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Plamondon fails to disclose “allowing the submitted
query to pass to the remote DNS server” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 6-10;
Reply Br. 2^1. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Plamondon describes optimizing network traffic by caching objects in a
network system to provide, for example, accelerated domain name resolution.
Plamondon, Abstract. In the domain name resolution example, an appliance can
intercept a client’s DNS request to resolve a host name, and can then identify an
entry in a cache as a resolved address of the host name. Plamondon, 127. Figure
1A shows a network architecture in which a client 102 can communicate with a
server 106 over a network 104 via a network optimization appliance 200.
Plamondon, 202; Fig. 1A. “[T]he appliance 200 may intercept or otherwise
receive any type and form of request for an object from a server.” Plamondon,
^ 432. In one embodiment, “the appliance 200 may receive a request from the
client 102 for an object in a cache, such as the cache 232 of the appliance 200.” Id.
In addition to determining whether the requested object is located in the cache
(Plamondon, 433), “the appliance 200 forwards the request for the object to the
intended destination or server 106.” Plamondon, ^ 434. We agree with the
Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 5) that Plamondon’s forwarding of a request for an
object to server 106 meets the claim 1 limitation “allowing the submitted query to
pass to the remote DNS server.”
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Plamondon’s disclosure
is “distinct from sniffing the DNS request as it passes on its wav to the remote
DNS server” and that Plamondon’s appliance intercepts a request and then sends a
further request to a server, but does not allow the original request to pass. See
App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. First, neither the claims nor the Specification use the term
“sniffing.” Accordingly, to the extent “sniffing” requires more than “allowing the
3
Appeal 2017-008057
Application 13/739,067
submitted query to pass to the remote DNS server,” as recited in claim 1, we
decline to read additional limitations into the claim. Second, Appellants’ have not
directly addressed Plamondon’s disclosure that “the appliance 200 forwards the
request for the object to the intended destination server 106.” Plamondon, ^ 434.
That is, Appellants have not specifically explained why forwarding the request is
different than “allowing the submitted query to pass.” Although Plamondon also
discloses an embodiment where “the appliance 200 does not forward the client’s
request but instead generates a second request or packet for a status of the object,”
this is distinct from the embodiment relied upon by the Examiner (see Ans. 5) in
which the original request is forwarded to the server. See Plamondon, 434.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1,
and claims 2-12 not specifically argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-12.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
4