Ex Parte Horikawa

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 2012

11122249 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2012)

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.
11/122,249 05/05/2005 Koichi Horikawa 0050-0157CON1 4998
44987 7590 06/12/2012
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
EXAMINER
RENNER, BRANDON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KOICHI HORIKAWA
____________________

Appeal 2010-0010261
Application 11/122,249
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Juniper Networks, Inc. (App. Br. 1.)

Appeal 2010-001026
Application 11/122,249

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 6-17 and 26. Claims 1-5 and 18-25 have been canceled.
(App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and system for forwarding a multi-
protocol over Asynchronous transfer Mode (MPOA) packet in an ATM
network. (Spec. 4: 7-8.) In particular, upon receiving from a layer 3 filter
(23) permissibility information regarding an address resolution request
packet, a packet processor (22) in a first server (20) judges from the received
information whether the packet is permissible or not permissible. If the
processor determines that the packet is permissible, it then generates a
shortcut to directly forward the packet to a second client (601). (Spec. 10: 7-
17.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 6 further illustrates the invention as follows:

6. A method for forwarding a packet in a network, the
method comprising:

receiving, by a processor, an address resolution request
packet;

determining, by the processor, if the address resolution
request packet is permitted to be forwarded;

Appeal 2010-001026
Application 11/122,249

3
establishing, by the processor, a shortcut to a client
device if a packet can be transmitted via the shortcut and the
address resolution request packet is permitted to be
forwarded; and

forwarding, by the processor, the address resolution
request packet to a destination if the address resolution request
packet is permitted to be forwarded.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Huey US 5,467,349 Nov. 14, 1995
Cox US 6,189,041 B1 Feb. 13, 2001

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 6-8, 11, 13-17 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Cox.
2. Claim 9, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Cox and Huey.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, pages 4-18.
Representative Claim 6
Dispositive Issue: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Cox describes upon determining that an address resolution
Appeal 2010-001026
Application 11/122,249

4
packet is permitted to be forwarded, a processor forwards the packet via an
established shortcut as recited claim 6?
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Cox describes
the disputed limitations emphasized above. According to Appellant, while
Cox discloses sending traffic to a router based on a layer-3 address, it does
not determine if the traffic is permitted to be sent to the router. (App Br. 5.)
Therefore, Appellant submits that Cox discloses determining where to
forward a packet, but not if the packet should be forwarded. (Id. at 7.) In
response, the Examiner finds that because each router in Cox must
determine whether a packet transmitted via a layer-3 protocol is bound for a
destination in the layer-3 sub-network, Cox’s disclosure describes
determining if the packet should be forwarded. (Ans. 10-13.)
On the record before us, we do not agree with the Examiner’s
findings and ultimate determination of anticipation. Cox discloses that each
router utilizes layer-3 information to forward a packet to its destination (col.
2, ll. 50-54), and that the router must determine whether the packet is bound
for a destination in its layer-3 sub-network. If not, the packet is forwarded
to the next hop. (Col. 7, ll. 39-49.) We find that the cited portions of Cox,
at best, describe upon determining that a packet has a destination in the
layer-3 network, the router forwards the packet thereto. Otherwise, the router
forwards the packet to the next hop. Because the received packet is always
forwarded to a destination whether it is in the layer-3 sub-network or not, the
disclosed determination of whether the destination of the packet is in the
layer-3 sub-network does not describe determining if the packet is
Appeal 2010-001026
Application 11/122,249

5
permissible. As pointed out by Appellant, such information merely indicates
where the packet should be forwarded to as opposed to if it should be
forwarded. Because Appellant has shown at least one error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 6, we need not address Appellant’s other
arguments. It follows that Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 6.
Regarding the rejection of claim 13, Appellant argues that Cox does
not describe upon determining that an address should be included in an
address extension portion of a request packet, transmitting the packet via a
shortcut. According to Appellant, while Cox discloses including destination
address information in a reply packet, it does not describe determining if the
address should be included therein to thereby transmit the packet via a
shortcut. (App. Br. 10-12.) In response, the Examiner finds that Cox’s
disclosure of adding a vendor private extension to a reply packet being
transmitted through a network describes the disputed limitations. (Ans. 14.)
We find error in the Examiner’s rejection. In particular, while Cox
discloses that the vendor private extension may be added to the request
packet (col. 6, ll. 3-10), and that the packet may be transmitted via a shortcut
(col. 8, ll. 1-7), Cox does not indicate that such transmission is predicated
upon determining that the vendor private extension is included in the packet.
Therefore, Cox does not describe the disputed limitations. Because
Appellant has shown at least one error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim
13, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments. It follows that
Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.
Appeal 2010-001026
Application 11/122,249

6
Because claims 7, 8, 11, 14-17 also recite the disputed limitations of
claims 6 and 13 above, Appellant has similarly shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims for the same reasons set forth above.
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 12, Huey does not cure the noted
deficiencies of Cox. Therefore, Appellants have similarly shown error in the
rejection of those claims.
Regarding claim 26, Appellant argues that Cox does not describe
forming a source address extension by associating an address with an
address extension. (App. Br. 14-16.) This argument is not persuasive. We
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Cox’s disclosure of including a
vendor private extension in a request packet describes associating the vendor
private extension (address) with the request packet thereby forming a source
address extension. (Ans. 16.) It follows that Appellant has not shown error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6-17, as set forth
above. However, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Vsh