Ex Parte Grossman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2002

08877465 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2002)

1 As a result of the cancellation of claims 3 and 10, claims
4 through 6 and 11 now improperly depend from canceled claims.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte LEONID GROSSMAN
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-2193
Application No. 08/877,465
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 18. In an Amendment After Final (paper number 7),
claims 1, 7 and 14 were amended, and claims 3, 10, 12 and 15 were
canceled.1 Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 4 through 9, 11, 13, 14 and
16 through 18 remain before us on appeal.
Appeal No. 2000-2193
Application No. 08/877,465
2
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for
tagging an encapsulated packet that is sent from one end station
to another end station in a computer network. In the
encapsulated packet, the tag is provided between two media
headers.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method for achieving effective communication
across a media of data transmission in a computer network,
the computer network including a plurality of end stations,
a portion of the plurality end stations lacking operating
system support for the media, the method comprising:
providing an encapsulated packet from one end
station of the portion of the plurality of end stations;
utilizing a tag as an indicator of encapsulation
within the encapsulated packet; and
providing the tag between a media header and a
known media header in the encapsulated packet.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Edsall et al. (Edsall) 5,742,604 Apr. 21, 1998
(filed Mar. 28, 1996)
Hyden et al. (Hyden) 5,774,461 Jun. 30, 1998
(filed Sep. 27, 1995)
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Edsall.
Appeal No. 2000-2193
Application No. 08/877,465
3
Claims 4 through 6, 9, 14 and 16 through 18 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Edsall in
view of Hyden.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 11 and 13)
and the answer (paper number 12) for the respective positions of
the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
All of the claims on appeal require that the tag in the
encapsulated packet be placed between two media headers.
The examiner is of the opinion (answer, pages 4 and
9 through 11) that the interswitch link (ISL) source address (SA)
is a tag between an ISL destination address (DA) media header and
an Ethernet header (i.e., VLAN) in the ISL encapsulated packet
600 (Figure 6).
Appellant argues (brief, pages 9 and 10; reply brief, pages
2 and 3) that the examiner has improperly parsed an ISL header
comprised of an ISL destination address 602 and an ISL source
address 604 into both a header and a tag placed at the beginning
of an ISL encapsulated packet 300 to arrive at the claimed
invention.
Appeal No. 2000-2193
Application No. 08/877,465
4
We agree with appellant’s argument. In the ISL
encapsulation technique disclosed by Edsall, the original packet
300 (Figures 3 and 6) is tagged with an ISL header that includes
both the ISL destination address 602 and the ISL source address
604 (column 6, lines 19 through 27 and 56 through 67; column 7,
lines 33 through 44; and column 8, lines 23 through 31 and
41 through 60). Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
1, 2, 7, 8, 11 and 13 is reversed because “there is no basis for
calling Edsall’s ISL destination address a media header and ISL
source address a tag” (reply brief, page 3).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4 through 6, 9,
14 and 16 through 18 is reversed because the wireless LAN
teachings of Hyden do not cure the noted shortcoming in the
teachings of Edsall.
Appeal No. 2000-2193
Application No. 08/877,465
5
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed, and the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 4 through 6, 9, 14 and 16 through
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 2000-2193
Application No. 08/877,465
6
JOSEPH A. SAWYER, JR.
SAWYER AND ASSOCIATES
POST OFFICE BOX 51418
PALO ALTO, CA 94303