Ex Parte Harp et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12843732 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/843,732 07/26/2010
83417 7590 05/02/2016
AT&T Legal Department - HFZ
ATTN. Patent Docketing
One AT&T Way
Room 2A-207
Bedminster, NJ 07921
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Harp
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.
20103/2009-1203 6707
EXAMINER
WOLDEMARIAM, NEGA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID HARP, TOBY BEARDEN,
and JASON MATTHEW GODFREY
Appeal2014-006446
Application 12/843,732 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We AFFIRM and ENTER A NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
1 Appellants identify AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. as the real party in
interest. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-006446
Application 12/843,732
Invention
Appellants' invention concerns the routing of network
communications for network-based services. Network communications are
received. If at least one of a source address or a destination address of the
received communications is associated with a customer of a network-based
service, the communications are forwarded to a policy enforcement point for
application of the policy and further transmission to network equipment.
(Spec. i-fi-123-24, Abstract.)
Illustrative claims 1-3 are reproduced below:
1. A method to route network communications for
network-based services comprising:
determining if at least one of a source address or a
destination address of a first received network communication is
associated with a customer to receive a network-based service;
forwarding the first network communication to network
equipment if the at least one of the source address or the
destination address is not associated with the customer;
processing, at a policy enforcement point, the first network
communication to apply a policy associated with the customer;
and
transmitting, from the policy enforcement point to the
network equipment, a second network communication
representing the first network communication after application
of the policy.
2. The method as described in claim 1, wherein the
network-based service is a security service and the policy is a
security policy.
2
Appeal2014-006446
Application 12/843,732
3. The method as described in claim 1, further compnsmg:
receiving an Internet Protocol (IP) address request from a
client;
receiving credentials from the client associated with the
customer;
issuing an IP address to the client, wherein the IP address
is within a subnet to receive the network-based service if the
credentials indicate that the client is to receive the network -
based service;
issuing an IP address to the client, wherein the IP address
is outside the subnet to receive the network-based service if the
credentials indicate that the client is not to receive the network-
based service; and
wherein determining if at least one of the source address
or the destination address of the first network communication is
associated with the customer to receive the network-based
service further comprises determining if at least one of the source
address or the destination address of the first network
communication is within the subnet to receive the network-based
service.
Rejection2
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Garrett et al. (US 2002/0023174 Al; Feb. 21, 2002)
(hereinafter "Garrett"). (Final Action 5-11.)
Issues
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Garrett discloses the claim
limitation of "transmitting, from the policy enforcement point to the network
2 Rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and of
claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn. (Answer 10.)
3
Appeal2014-006446
Application 12/843,732
equipment, a second network communication representing the first network
communication after application of the policy," as recited in claim 1?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding that Garrett discloses the claim
limitation that the "network-based service is a security service and the policy
is a security policy," as recited in claim 2?
3) Did the Examiner err in finding that Garrett discloses "issuing an IP
address to the client, wherein the IP address is within a subnet to receive the
network-based service if the credentials indicate that the client is to receive
the network -based service" and "wherein the IP address is outside the
subnet to receive the network-based service if the credentials indicate that
the client is not to receive the network-based service," as recited in claim 3?
ANALYSIS
1) "transmitting, from the policy enforcement point to the network
equipment, a second network communication representing the
first network communication after application of the policy"
The Examiner finds that Garrett discloses the method of claim 1.
(Final Action 5-6). With respect the claimed limitation of "transmitting,
from the policy enforcement point to the network equipment, a second
network communication representing the first network communication after
application of the policy" the Examiner finds this limitation is taught by
Garrett's disclosure of IP packets being routed to different service networks
(elements 151, 152 of Fig. 1) or routed elsewhere according to other packet
filtering rules (element 307 of Fig. 3). (Final Action 5---6.)
Appellants argue that Garrett fails to teach "transmitting a second
network communication to the same network equipment." (Appeal Br. 15,
emphasis in original; Reply Br. 1-3.) However, Appellants argument fails
to convince us for two reasons.
4
Appeal2014-006446
Application 12/843,732
First, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed network equipment
does not necessarily refer to one element, but under a broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, may refer to one or more
elements of network equipment. (Final Action 2-3; Answer 11.) Initially,
we note the term "network equipment" is not defined explicitly in
Appellants' Specification. As the Examiner finds, the Specification states,
"[t]here may be any number of additional network equipment 135, and the
network equipment 135 may be physically located in any location, whether
local or remote from the policy enforcement point 125 and/or the policy
enforcement access point 120." (Answer 2, quoting Spec. i-f 32.)
Additionally, we note the Specification describes:
An example network of an ISP comprises many individual
pieces of network equipment. The network equipment may be
organized such that subscribers are provided network service by
an edge device of the network such as a router or a switch. There
may be additional components internal to the network that
handle network traffic or communications to route the
communications to the proper destination. Edge devices may be
contained in edge sites near customer premises to achieve a
greater signal strength between the customer equipment and the
edge device.
(Spec. i-f 12, emphasis added.) Network equipment is shown in Figure 1 as
several overlaid elements, in the same way that internet sites 140 are shown.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of "network equipment" in claim 1 does not limit the network equipment to
a single piece of network equipment such as an edge device (router or
switch) or other component, but rather may be construed as a plural noun
describing all the elements used to provide network service.
5
Appeal2014-006446
Application 12/843,732
Second, Appellants argue in their response to the withdrawn 3 5
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejection that, while claim 1 does not contain
the conditional language of claim 1 7 which causes the second transmission
to occur only "when the at least one of the source address or the destination
address is associated with the customer," claim 1 nevertheless teaches that
the network communications are forwarded to network equipment 13 5 just
once, either from the policy enforcement point 125 (if the source or
destination IP address indicate it should be forwarded there) or, "otherwise"
to the network equipment from the communications forwarder (element 305,
part of policy enforcement access point 120). (Appeal Br. 11-12, emphasis
original.) Thus, the argument that, "Garrett does not teach or suggest
transmitting a second network communication to the same network
equipment" (Appeal Br. 15) is inconsistent with Appellants' interpretation of
the claim as requiring only one transmission, based on the results of the
"determining" step.
We therefore affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and similarly
affirm the rejection of independent claims 11 and 17, argued on substantially
the same basis. (Appeal Br. 17-20.) Additionally, we affirm the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 8-10, 12, and 14--16, not
separately argued.
2) "wherein the network-based service is a security
service and the policy is a security policy"
Appellants argue that Garrett does not contain a teaching or
suggestion that the network based service is a security service or that the
policy is a security policy, as recited in claim 2. (Appeal Br. 17-18.)
Appellants argue the policy in Garrett is not a security policy, and the
6
Appeal2014-006446
Application 12/843,732
service being provided is not a security service. (Id.) The Examiner
contends that the packet filtering in Garrett is a security service applying a
security policy. (Answer 12.)
We agree with the Examiner's finding regarding the disclosure of
Garrett. Garrett concerns itself with application of a differentiated quality-
of-support (QoS) policy. (Garrett i-fi-12-3, 6, 25-26, and 41--44.) The
Examiner finds that the policy is applied by the router, and that policy
decisions should be made after an IP address has been authenticated.
(Answer 12.) We agree and we additionally find Garrett discloses that the
QoS policy includes a security element, in the use of the authentication of
devices in the implementation of the QoS policy. (Id. i16, "[T]he host
configuration protocol messages ... are used ... in order to restrict access to
the access network infrastructure to those network access devices that are
properly registered and authenticated.")
We thus agree with the Examiner Garrett discloses the disputed
limitation, in its disclosure of a security policy authenticating devices while
implementing the QoS policy.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 and similarly recited
claims 13 and 18 .. However, because our findings and reasoning differ
from the Examiner's, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of
rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to provide Appellants with a full
opportunity to respond thereto.
3) "issuing an IP address to the client, wherein the IP address is
within a subnet to receive the network-based service if the
credentials indicate that the client is to receive the network -based
service" and "wherein the IP address is outside the subnet to
7
Appeal2014-006446
Application 12/843,732
receive the network-based service if the credentials indicate that
the client is not to receive the network-based service"
Appellants argue that Garrett does not teach issuing an IP address to
the client outside the subnet, if the credentials indicate that the client is not
to receive the network-based service, as recited in claim 3. (Appeal Br. 17;
Reply Br. 4--5.) Appellants argue that
Garrett describes what is to happen when the device is to receive
the service, but does not describe issuing an IP address to the
client, wherein the IP address is outside the subnet to receive the
network-based service if the credentials indicate that the client is
not to receive the network-based service.
(Reply Br. 5, emphasis in original.)
Garrett describes issuing a network address from a pool of addresses
associated with a service. (Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 4.) For the rejection of
claim 3, the Examiner cites Garrett at paragraphs 6 and 25. (Final Action.
6-7; Answer 12.) As described in Garrett paragraph 25 et seq., and shown
in the accompanying Figure 3, Garrett includes routing to two different
networks based on address information in the packet header. As disclosed in
Garrett, if the source address matches addresses associated with a first
provider, that packet is routed to that provider. (Garrett Fig. 3, elements
303, 304.) If not, then, if the source address matches addresses associated
with a second provider, that packet is routed to that second provider.
(Garrett Fig.3, elements 305, 306.) As seen in Fig. 1 and accompanying
text, these two networks are shown as being separate; therefore, one of these
discloses "the subnet to receive the network-based service" and the other
discloses a second subnet, "outside the [first] subnet," which will be used
when the client associated with the packet is not to receive the first network-
based service.
8
Appeal2014-006446
Application 12/843,732
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Garret discloses the disputed
limitation and we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 3, and similarly
affirm the rejection of claims 4--7, and 19-20, not separately argued.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as anticipated by Garrett is affirmed.
We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 2, 13, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Garrett.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review."
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection
to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in
which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
9
Appeal2014-006446
Application 12/843,732
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
10