Ex Parte Gupta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2016

13453688 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/453,688 04/23/2012 AnilGupta
56436 7590 11/16/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82964757 6974
EXAMINER
LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANIL GUPTA and SUNG-JU LEE
Appeal2015-007591
Application 13/453,688 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-19, which are all of the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to "wireless client authentication and
assignment." Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Co., LP, which is wholly-owned by Hewlett-Packard Co. and
has a general or managing partner ofHPQ Holdings, LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-007591
Application 13/453,688
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A network device, comprising:
a processmg resource;
a memory resource coupled to the processing resource,
wherein the memory resource stores instructions executable by
the processing resource to:
act as a default gateway, present a web portal for
logon, and provide services useful to the wireless client in
response to a request from a wireless client prior to
authentication of the wireless client;
send a dissociation command comprising a dis-
association frame or a deauthentication frame for the
wireless client in response to an initial authentication of
the wireless client; and
assign traffic to a local virtual local area network
(VLAN) defined on an access point (AP) associated with
the wireless client and not act as the default gateway or
provide the services useful to the wireless client in
response to a subsequent authentication of the wireless
client such that traffic from the wireless client does not
flow through the network device after the wireless client is
assigned to the VLAN, wherein the VLAN provides access
to a desired network offering the services useful to the
wireless client, and wherein a different network device
acts as the default gateway for the wireless client on the
VLAN.
Rejections
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over the combination of Janakiraman et al. (US 2012/0291098
Al; Nov. 15, 2012), Francfort et al. (US 2008/0126455 Al; May 29, 2008),
Murphy et al (US 2010/0329177 Al; Dec. 30, 2010), and Iyer et al. (US
2013/0201979 Al; Aug. 8, 2013). Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal2015-007591
Application 13/453,688
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Janakiraman, Francfort, Murphy, Iyer, and Singla et
al. (US 7,546,458 Bl; June 9, 2009). Final Act. 14.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Murphy teaches or suggests
"traffic from the wireless client does not flow through the network device
after the wireless client is assigned to the VLAN," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would have found reason to combine Murphy
with the other prior art references relied upon by the Examiner?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "traffic from the wireless client does not flow through
the network device after the wireless client is assigned to the VLAN." The
Examiner relies upon Murphy for this limitation. Ans. 2-3.
According to Murphy, "[a]n access point (AP) is a device used by
wireless clients to connect to a network." Murphy i-f 1. A wireless switch is
"used to manage APs and provide network-connectivity to wireless clients."
Id. i-f 1. In Murphy, Figure 1 depicts a network 102 connected to a wireless
switch 104, which is connected to APs 106-1to106-N, each of which is
connected to other wireless devices collectively labeled UAP mesh 108. Id.
i-fi-1 15, 22, 24. "The APs 106 may be treated as border devices between the
wireless switch 104 ... and the UAP mesh 108." Id. i-f 22. To offload some
of the work from the switch, the APs may locally provide services such as
switching packets or proxy address resolution protocol. Id. i-fi-122-23.
Figure 3B of Murphy, reproduced below, depicts an example of this.
3
Appeal2015-007591
Application 13/453,688
Stat~:1 "I
;u.4~t
_,.. ................................ _._ ............. ....
In Figure 3B, the system "includes an AP 312 and stations 314-1 to
314-3 . . . . The stations are divided into VLAN s 316-1 and 316-2 ....
[T]he AP 312 switches traffic from VLAN 316-1 locally, if possible, and
passes traffic from VLAN 316-2 upstream for upstream switching," such as
at the wireless switch. Murphy i-f 3 7.
Appellants contend Murphy fails to teach or disclose the disputed
limitation because it teaches that traffic from the second VLAN (labeled
316-2) still flows to the switch. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. However, we
agree with the Examiner that "Murphy, paragraph 37, teaches switching
locally all traffic of a specific VLAN" and that none of the traffic on that
specific VLAN flows upstream to the switch. Ans. 3 (emphasis added).
Therefore, Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the claim
scope as currently written. The claim recites "traffic from the wireless client
does not flow through the network device," where "the wireless client"
4
Appeal2015-007591
Application 13/453,688
refers to the earlier recitation in claim 1 that the network device (i.e., the
switch in Murphy) have instructions to "provide services useful to the
wireless client in response to a request from a wireless client."2 Nowhere
does claim 1 require that all wireless clients or all VLAN s on an AP meet
the claimed requirements, instead requiring only that "a" wireless client do
so. See also Spec. 4: 18-21 ("The AP 104 can provide more than one
VLAN .... Each VLAN provided by the AP 104 can have a distinct set of
clients associated therewith."). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Figure 3B of Murphy teaches an example in which all traffic from VLAN
316-1 is switched locally rather than passed upstream to the switch, and that
this teaches or suggests the claimed limitation. Murphy i-f 37; Ans. 3.
Appellants further contend "there is no motivation to combine
Murphy with the other cited art" because if Murphy switches traffic locally,
then "the traffic in Murphy would never leave the AP" and hence could not
meet the claim limitation of "the VLAN provides access to a desired
network." App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3--4. However, the Examiner does not
rely on Murphy for teaching that limitation and instead relies on
Janakiraman. Final Act. 4 (citing Janakiraman i-f 33). Appellants have not
sufficiently addressed Janakiraman or the Examiner's proposed
combination. As the Federal Circuit has held, "[n]on-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
2 We note that "the wireless client" is introduced before "a wireless client."
In the event of further prosecution, Appellants may wish to reverse the order
of "the" and "a" in order to avoid any lack of antecedent basis.
5
Appeal2015-007591
Application 13/453,688
Moreover, Appellants have not sufficiently addressed the multiple
reasons for making the asserted combination of references that have been
provided by the Examiner, including that Murphy's switching at the AP
"would help conserve resources by reducing the amount of data that passes
through wireless nodes to a switch"; "may enable faster transmission times
for certain users, while maintaining centralized control of other users"; and
"would take some processing burden off the upstream switch because it
would be required to do less of the work." Ans. 4 (quotation omitted).
Given the record before us, we agree with the Examiner that "[t]he addition
of Murphy to these teachings does not negate how a specific VLAN may be
utilized as taught by Janakiraman, but only adds the ability to switch
particular VLAN s at an AP, thus removing some burden from J anakiraman' s
network switch." Ans. 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2-5 and 7-19, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar
reasons. See App. Br. 8-10; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-5 and 7-19.
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(±).
AFFIRMED
6