Ex Parte Haverinen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

10659777 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

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