Ex Parte HaverinenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201310659777 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/659,777 09/10/2003 Henry Petteri Haverinen 846A.0035.U1 (US) 4888 10948 7590 02/26/2013 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC 4 Research Drive, Suite 202 Shelton, CT 06484 EXAMINER AJAYI, JOEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2013 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 HENRY PETTERI HAVERINEN _____________ Appeal 2010-009584 Application 10/659,777 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRYAN F. MOORE, and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009584 Application 10/659,777 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 13-32. App. Br. 3. Claims 3-5 and 9-12 have are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention is directed to handover and particularly to handover and tunnel updating between access devices. See Spec. ¶ [0001]. Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method, comprising: allocating a tunneling IP address for a tunnel to be formed for data transmission of a terminal connected to a first access device, to a corresponding host, to which tunneling IP address the tunnel is bound, and transferring at least the tunneling IP address from the first access device to a second access device in response to detecting a need to change the connection of the terminal to be carried out by the second access device. REFERENCES La Porta US 6,654,359 B1 Nov. 25, 2003 Johansson US 2002/0080752 A1 Jun. 27, 2002 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 2, 8, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 24-28, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by La Porta. Ans. 3-6. Claims 6, 7, 14, 18, 21-23, and 29-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of La Porta and Johansson. Ans. 6-7. Appeal 2010-009584 Application 10/659,777 3 ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that La Porta discloses “transferring at least the tunneling IP address from the first access device to a second access device in response to detecting a need to change the connection of the terminal to be carried out by the second access device [,]” as recited in claim 1; and 2. Did the Examiner err in combining La Porta and Johansson and finding that Johansson teaches “binding between a MAC address of the network interface and the tunnelling IP address [,]” as recited in claim 14? ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) - La Porta Claims 1, 2, 8, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 24-28, and 32 Appellant’s arguments regarding this rejection refer to claim 1. Appellant argues the limitation cited above is not met. App. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellant argues that because the base stations of La Porta act as routers “the base stations of La Porta are not disclosed as having tunneling-related functionality, as claimed.” App. Br. 9 (citing La Porta, 21:50-54, 22:35-36). Alternatively, Appellant argues that because La Porta teaches that “routing table is updated to direct a packet to the new base station [,] . . . La Porta does not teach the claimed transfer of a tunneling address.” Id.at 10. These arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner finds that the base station of La Porta, which acts as a router, corresponds to the claimed “first access device.” Ans. 8 (citing La Appeal 2010-009584 Application 10/659,777 4 Porta, 5:18-19 (“base stations include the capabilities associated with routers”)). The Specification discloses that a first access device may be a router. Spec. ¶¶ [0024]-[0025] (“a router device R [,]” and “a first access device, such as AP or R . . . .”) Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we agree with the Examiner that La Porta discloses a “first access device.” Thus, we find that a base station as disclosed by La Porta meets the limitation to a first access device. As to whether La Porta discloses the transfer of a tunneling IP address, La Porta discloses that a care-of address, i.e. an IP address (7:41-43, 10:56-59) is shared among base stations associated with a domain (id. at 7:41-47, 10:52-59). In fact, Appellant admits that “the mobile device provides the device’s care-of address (IP address field 314) to each router utilized to route packets from the root router for that foreign domain to the mobile device using a power up path setup message.” Reply Br. 3. Thus, the mobile device is an intermediary that delivers the tunneling IP address from a first access device to a second access device. The transfer of the IP address is completed by the mobile phone detecting that it needs to transfer or hand off between the first device and the second device. At that time, the IP address is transferred to the second device in the sense that the second device is now using the IP address for tunneling. For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1. Appellant does not substantively argue claims 2, 8, 13, 15- 17, 19, 20, 24-28, and 32, thus those claims fall with claim 1. Appeal 2010-009584 Application 10/659,777 5 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - La Porta and Johansson Claims 6, 7, 14, 18, 21-23, and 29-31 Appellant argues Johansson does not overcome the deficiencies in the teachings of La Porta regarding the allegedly missing limitation discussed above. Because we find that La Porta teaches that limitation we are not persuaded by this argument. As to claims 14, 18, 21 and 29, Appellant argues that “no evidence has been provided that the MAC address 53 discussed in paragraph [0086] of Johansson would be the MAC address of a network interface of a second access device, as claimed.” App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded by this argument. Johansson teaches that “[f]or the HTTP 50b traffic from the mobile node 3 to the correspondent node 4b, the foreign agent 2a applies a dynamic NAT index 51 based on the mobile node IP address 3 and MAC address 53 in order to separate traffic destined for mobile node 3 and 3b.” Johansson ¶ [0086]. Appellant has not explained why this teaching does not meet the claimed limitation. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Johansson teaches “binding between a MAC address of the network interface and the tunnelling IP address,” as recited in claims 14, 18, 21, and 29. Appellant argues that no motivation to combine La Porta and Johansson has been shown because, for example, “no evidence has been presented that La Porta and Johansson are directed to optimizing the same aspects of Mobile IP or that the asserted teachings of Johansson are compatible with La Porta’s system.” Reply Br. 6. We note that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined Appeal 2010-009584 Application 10/659,777 6 by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). The Examiner finds that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of LaPorta by including neighbor advertisement, as taught by Johansson, for the purpose of optimizing routing techniques.” Ans. 7. The Examiner also explains that “LaPorta and Johansson both deal with a way to optimize Mobile IP, LaPorta [col. 3] (lines 15-22); Johansson [par. 1] (lines 1-5).” Id. at 9. Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s suggestion for modifying La Porta with Johansson suffices as an articulated reason with some rational underpinning to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. We also note, as to whether La Porta is “compatible” with the teachings of Johansson, the Examiner is not required to demonstrate how to bodily incorporate La Porta’s features into Johansson to establish obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, we do not find error in the Examiner’s decision to combine La Porta and Johansson. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 13-32 is affirmed. Appeal 2010-009584 Application 10/659,777 7 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