Ex Parte Gerasimov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2013

11388470 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SERGEY GERASIMOV, CLAY E. OLSEN,
and MARC A. SORDI
____________________

Appeal 2010-0094501
Application 11/388,470
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and BRYAN F.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett Packard Development Company, LP.
(App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2010-009450
Application 11/388,470

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-13 and 20. Claims 14-19 have been canceled.
(App. Br. 1.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for configuring a computing
device (102) having a plurality of Internet version six (IPV6) network
addresses (112A-D). (Spec. 3, ll. 13-23, Fig. 1.) In particular, after
acquiring a manual protocol address (112B), the computing device performs
stateless network configuration for in accordance with the protocol. (Id. at
Spec. 3, l. 24- spec. 4, l. 6.) Then, the computing device performs stateful
network configuration in accordance with the protocol policy (e.g. DHCP
policy), and pursuant to at least one managed configuration flag for the
stateful network configuration. (Id., ll. 10-19.) If, however, the protocol
policy conflicts with the managed configuration flag, the computing device
performs the stateful network configuration in accordance with the policy
only thereby overriding the configuration flag. (Id. at 10, ll. 10-20, Fig 3.)

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
Appeal 2010-009450
Application 11/388,470

3
1. A method comprising:
where a manual protocol address for a computing device
has been stored, acquiring the manual protocol address for the
computing device;
performing stateless network configuration for the
computing device in accordance with a protocol; and,
where a policy for the protocol does not conflict with the
managed configuration flags for the stateful network
configuration, performing stateful network configuration for the
computing device in accordance with the policy for the protocol
and in accordance with one or more managed configuration
flags for the stateful network configuration,
where the policy for the protocol at least partially
conflicts with the managed configuration flags for the stateful
network configuration, performing the stateful network
configuration for the computing device always in accordance
with just the policy for the protocol, such that the policy for the
protocol overrides the managed configuration flags and such
that the stateful network configuration is not performed in
accordance with the managed configuration flags.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Peng US 2005/0249214 A1 Nov. 10, 2005

S. Thomson et al., IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration, Network
Working Group, RFC 2462 (December 1998) (“Thomson”).

S. Daniel Park et al., Consideration M and 0 Flags ofIPv6 Router
Advertisement, Network Working Group, Internet Draft (IETF) (July
11, 2004) (“Park”).
Appeal 2010-009450
Application 11/388,470

4
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Thomson and Park.
The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Thomson, Park, and Peng.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4-8, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-8.
Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Thomson and Park teaches or suggests performing the stateful network
configuration in accordance with the protocol policy that overrides the
managed configuration flag where the configuration flag conflicts with the
protocol policy, as recited in claim 1?

Appellants argue that the combination of Thomson and Park does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. (Id.) In
particular, Appellants argue that the proffered combination discloses upon
the policy overriding the flags, performing stateless configuration as
opposed to performing stateful configuration as claimed. (App. Br. 5.)
Further, Appellants argue that the disclosed flags merely indicate whether
stateful and/or stateless services are available, as opposed to indicating what
services should be used. Only when the flags are paired with the policy in a
Appeal 2010-009450
Application 11/388,470

5
cooperative manner do they indicate what services should be used. (Id. at
6.) According to Appellants, in the proffered combination, no conflict ever
arises between the policy and the flags. That is, the act of overriding the flag
does not ensue as a result of the cited conflict. Consequently, Appellants
submit that the proposed combination does not render claim 1 unpatentable.
(Id.).
In response, the Examiner finds that Park’s disclosure of a scenario
where both the M-flag and the O-flag are in the off position (i.e. stateful
configuration is not to be performed) and M policy is set to 1 (i.e. stateful
configuration should be performed) teaches a scenario where the flags
conflict with the policy. In that case, Park discloses that the host should
invoke stateful configuration regardless of what the contents of receiving
router advertisements (RAs) indicate. (Ans. 13-14.) The Examiner further
finds that the cited disclosure of Park reinforces Thomson’s disclosure of the
M-flag value indicating that stateful configuration should be performed to
teach the disputed limitations. (Id. at 14.)
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the Examiner’s
underlying factual findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness
regarding claim 1. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that, in
scenario 1, Park’s disclosure of the flags for both stateless and stateful
configurations being off (M=OFF and O=OFF) teaches that according to the
flags, no stateless configuration or stateful configuration should take place.
(Park, pp. 4-5) We further agree with the Examiner that Park’s disclosure of
when M-policy = 1, “[t]he host should invoke stateful DHCPv6 regardless
Appeal 2010-009450
Application 11/388,470

6
for address autoconfiguration regardless of the content of receiving RAs or
the existence of RAs” teaches that the host should invoke stateless
configuration irrespective of what the stateful flag indicates. (Ans. 13; Park ,
p. 4.) Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner, in that particular scenario,
Park teaches a policy that conflicts the indication of a stateful flag, and as a
result of such conflict, the policy overrides the flag’s indication of not
performing a stateful configuration to thereby perform the stateful
autoconfiguration, as prescribed in the policy only. Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner that Park cures the noted deficiencies of Thomson. It follows
that Appellants have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Thomson and Park
renders claim 1 unpatentable.
Claims 2-13 (not argued separately) fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding claim 20, Appellants argue the combination of Thomson
and Park does not teach or suggest the limitations recited therein. (App. Br.
7.) These arguments are not persuasive. We find that the Examiner has
rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence each argument separately raised
by Appellants in the Brief regarding the cited claim. (Ans. 15-16). We
consequently adopt the Examiner’s findings, which are incorporated herein
by reference. Because these findings have not been persuasively rebutted by
Appellants, we find that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 20.

Appeal 2010-009450
Application 11/388,470

7
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-13 and 20 as set forth
above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc