Ex Parte Goode et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13533557 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/533,557 06/26/2012 Brandon Hall Goode 33020-RA24 /11037-US1 4508
124538 7590 02/02/2017
Cox Communications, Inc.
c/o Next IP Law Group LLP
Two Ravinia
Suite 500
Atlanta, GA 30346
EXAMINER
HUQ, OBAIDUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
bgunter @ nextiplaw. com
bbalser @ nextiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRANDON HALL GOODE and ROBERT CLARK WHITTEN
Appeal 2016-002170
Application 13/533,5571
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—11, and 13—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Cox Communications, Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002170
Application 13/533,557
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
The claimed invention relates to network addressing, and specifically,
mapping of addresses in the IPv6 protocol. Abstract; Spec. Tflf 9-10. Claims
1,10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitation in italics):
1. A method comprising:
receiving a digital packet;
converting the digital packet to an IPv6 address, the IPv6
address comprising a subnet prefix and an interface identifier, the
interface identifier comprising a telephone service type
identifier, a country code, and a number; and
transmitting the digital packet.
App. Br. A-l (Claims App.).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 10, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kuparinen et al. (US 2010/0226310 Al; Sept. 9, 2010)
(“Kuparinen”) and Kim et al. (US 2002/0083198 Al; June 27, 2002)
(“Kim”). Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kuparinen, Kim, and Park (US 2006/0104243 Al; May
18, 2006). Final Act. 6.
Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuparinen, Kim, and Hall et al. (US
2007/0076724 Al; Apr. 5, 2007). Final Act. 6-8.
2
Appeal 2016-002170
Application 13/533,557
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kuparinen, Kim, and Baek (US 2006/0198351 Al; Sept.
7, 2006). Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kuparinen, Kim, and Lioy et al. (US 2005/0111377 Al;
May 26, 2005). Final Act. 9—10.2 3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the
prior art teaches the claimed “converting” step, and specifically, that the
converted (IPv6) address includes an interface identifier comprising “a
telephone service type identifier.” App. Br. 6 (emphasis added); Reply Br.
3. We disagree.
As the Examiner finds, Ans. 9, Kuparinen (like Appellants’ invention)
is directed to IPv6 “mapping” and teaches addressing including “interface
identifiers,” Kuparinen | 9. The “interface identifiers are mapped to fields
the intended purpose of which is to identify and distinguish between
2 Claims 6, 7, 15, 16, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims.
3
Appeal 2016-002170
Application 13/533,557
different classes,” including “Traffic Class and Type of Service.'” Id. at H 9—
10 (emphasis added); see also Kim 125 (“[T]he present invention generates
IPv6 unicast addresses based on telephone numbers.”); id. at 126 (“there is
shown a telephone number system for a communications network”).
Appellants contend the interfaces taught in Kuparinen are “completely
different from the claimed telephone service type identifier.” App. Br. 6.
Appellants do not allege any particular scope or meaning of “telephone
service type identifier” is defined in the Specification, nor do Appellants
explain how the service identifiers in Kuparinen would not teach the
disputed limitation to one of ordinary skill. Although the Specification
refers to “service types,” only “non-limiting” examples are given. See Spec.
118.
We must give the claim its broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the Specification, but we cannot read limitations from the
Specification into the claim. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com. Corp., 343
F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we construe “telephone
service type identifier” to mean an identifier of a type of telephone service.
On the record before us, Appellants’ arguments do not demonstrate error in
the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
the cited combination of references (and Kuparinen in particular) as teaching
such an identifier. Final Act. 3—5; Ans. 9; Kuparinen H 9-10.
Appellants’ argument regarding independent claims 10 and 19, App.
Br. 8—13, both of which recite limitations commensurate in scope to claim 1,
is redundant to the argument regarding claim 1, and Appellants do not argue
any distinctions among the independent claims. We, therefore, discern no
error for the reasons set forth above. Appellants argue the remaining claims,
4
Appeal 2016-002170
Application 13/533,557
all of which are dependent, are patentable for the same reasons as the
independent claims and that the additional references do not “make up for
the deficiencies” with respect to the independent claims. App. Br. 7, 10.
Because we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of the independent
claims, we also find no error in the rejections of the dependent claims.3
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejections of
claims 1, 2, 4—11, and 13—20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—11, and 13—20.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
3 Additionally, in the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to
consider whether claim 10 should be subject to rejection under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 112,11 as being a “single means” claim. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d
712, 715 (Fed. Cir. 1983); 35 U.S.C. § 112, | 6 (claims drawn to “a
combination” may be expressed as a means or step for performing a
specified function).
5