Ex Parte HallenslebenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 201410527253 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SEBASTIAN HALLENSLEBEN ____________ Appeal 2011-013215 Application 10/527,253 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013215 Application 10/527,253 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-17. Claims 5 and 6 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The present invention relates generally to a method for requesting user access to an application by a network. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for requesting access for a user to an application in a further network, wherein an entity providing said application can be accessed only through a first network or a second network, the application being independent of the first and second network, and wherein the user attempted to access the application at least once through the first network, the method comprising the following steps: granting the user access to the second network, receiving a request for accessing the application from the user, detecting by the second network that the user already contacted the application via the first network, requesting by the second network from the first network an identifier that has been generated and used by the first network to identify the user towards the entity that provides the application, receiving the requested, generated identifier by the second network, and sending a request, by the second network, for accessing the application and the generated identifier received from the first network, towards the entity providing the application to identify the user to the entity that provides the Appeal 2011-013215 Application 10/527,253 3 application, the identifier being used by the first network is the same identifier used by the second network. Appellant appeals the following rejection: Claims 1-4 and 7-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Khalil (US 7,218,634 B1, May 15, 2007) and Saito (US 6,275,941 B1, Aug. 14, 2001). Ans. 4-7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to claim 1 that has been argued by Appellant. Br. 5-11. We disagree with Appellant’s contentions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Ans. 7-12. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We note in response to each of the arguments raised by Appellant, the Examiner presents detailed findings and responses, which are not rebutted by Appellant in a Reply Brief. Our discussions here will be limited to the following points of contention. Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined cited art, particularly Khalil, teaches and/or suggests identifiers, as set forth in claim 1? Appeal 2011-013215 Application 10/527,253 4 Appellant contends Khalil: [D]oes not disclose a second network’s use of the same identifier, generated and used by a first network towards an application in a further network to access the application in the further network via the second network. Further, Khalil does not disclose a second network requesting the identifier from the first network. Br. 10 (emphasis in original omitted, emphasis ours). The Examiner finds that Khalil shows a globally routable address by which the mobile node can be universally identified on the Internet (see Ans. 5). We agree with the Examiner. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. We further note Appellant has not provided an explicit definition of “identifier” in the Specification. The Examiner found in Khalil: [I]t is an inherent property of both IPv4 and IPv6 (as employed by Khalil) that all packets transmitted with that protocol comprise a “Source IP address” that indicates who originally sent the packet. In the Khalil invention, once the mobile node has established itself with the foreign network and the foreign [second] network has been provided the globally routable home address by the home [first] network, it stands to reason that this home address is what would be used to identify the mobile node as its “Source IP address” when it communicates with the outside world via the Internet, regardless of whichever foreign network it is currently connected to at the time. . . . [Khalil discloses] a mobile node, upon connecting to a foreign network, having said foreign network request the mobile node’s home network for a globally identifiable and routable home address that identifies the user, so that the mobile node may reconnect to the Internet (including whichever external applications the user of the mobile node was in prior connection with) using said home address. Appeal 2011-013215 Application 10/527,253 5 Ans. 11-12 (emphasis ours) (footnote and citation omitted). It is apparent the same globally routable address is used by the home network and the foreign network. Based on our review of Khalil (col. 10, ll. 20-33) and consistent with the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 5, 11-12), we interpret the claim language “identifier” using the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure, to include the globally routable address. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Regarding Appellant’s contention that Khalil does not teach “the user has already attempted to access the target through a first network and is now seeking access to the target through a second network” (Br. 9, emphasis ours), Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim language as claim 1 does not recite the conditions of “already” or “now.” In view of the above discussion, since Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the combined disclosures of Khalil and Saito, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 is sustained. For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error regarding the rejection of claim 1, and claims 7 and 11, which have commensurate claim language. Regarding claims 2-4, 8-10, and 12-17, Appellant argues these claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency from independent claims 1, 7, and 11, and for the same reasons advanced for claim 1. Br. 11. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-17. Appeal 2011-013215 Application 10/527,253 6 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-17. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation