Ex Parte Jamieson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

11508660 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

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.
11/508,660 08/23/2006 Dwight Jamieson 1565-5U (909514-US-NP) 4110
14862 7590 06/30/2016
Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.
200 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 2040
Fort Lauderdale, EL 33301
EXAMINER
MIRZA, ADNAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ptomail @ c wiplaw. com
pair_avaya@ firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DWIGHT JAMIESON, MICHAEL AALDERS, and
PATRIK LAHTI
Appeal 2014-007650
Application 11/508,660
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
Finally Rejecting claims 1—26, all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2014-007650
Application 11/508,660
The present invention relates generally to “communication networks,
and more particularly to a method, system, and apparatus that provides for
aggregating multiple site-specific routes within an addressing architecture.”
Spec. 13.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for aggregating multiple site-specific routes,
the method comprising:
determining a first aggregate-aware route at a first
service provider, the first aggregate-aware route including a prefix of
a site-specific address, a prefix length of the site-specific address and
a prefix length of an aggregate route address of the first service
provider.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1—261 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Krishnamurthy et al (US 6,928,485 Bl, Aug. 9, 2005).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We
concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that
Krishnamurthy describes the claimed method “for aggregating multiple site-
specific routes” by “determining a first aggregate-aware route at a first
1 The statement of rejection in the Final Rejection, as well as a statement of
rejection in the Examiner’s Answer, state only that claims 1—25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Krishnamurthy.
Final Act. 2, Ans. 3. However, in the body of the Final Rejection, claim 26
also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Krishnamurthy. Final Act. 4.
2
Appeal 2014-007650
Application 11/508,660
service provider, the first aggregate-aware route including a prefix of a site-
specific address, a prefix length of the site-specific address and a prefix
length of an aggregate route address of the first service provider” (see claim
1).
Here, the Examiner finds Krishnamurthy’s numerical value
represented as an IP address describes a prefix length of the site-specific
address (see Ans. 5—6). The Examiner further finds Krishnamurthy’s client
IP address common numerical describes a prefix for the service provider and
describes the claimed “prefix length of the aggregate route address of the
first service provider” (see id. at 4—5). We disagree with this interpretation.
As identified by Appellants, the claimed invention requires “the first
aggregate-aware route includes three elements: one address prefix and two
prefix lengths” (App. Br. 7), while “none of Krishnamurthy’s entries
includes three elements” and rather Krishnamurthy describes a prefix and a
netmask length but does not suggest or imply the claimed “prefix length of
an aggregate route address of the first service provider” (App. Br. 9).
Specifically, Krishnamurthy describes:
the method includes the steps of generating a unified
prefix/netmask table from a plurality of extracted prefix/netmask
entries, extracting a plurality of client IP addresses from the at
least one network log, comparing each of the plurality of client
IP addresses with entries in the unified/prefix netmask table to
determine a common longest matching prefix between each of the
plurality of client IP addresses and the entries in the
unified/prefix netmask table and grouping all of the client IP
addresses which share the common longest matching prefix into
at least one client cluster. Each client within a client cluster will
share a common network address prefix from the unified routing
table with the other clients in the same client cluster.
Krishnamurthy col. 2,11. 8—22 (emphasis added).
3
Appeal 2014-007650
Application 11/508,660
The unified routing information table, preferably includes
routing information from one or more routing tables, such as
network routing prefix and netmask information ... a netmask
is a series of bits designed to “mask” or conceal certain portions
of an IP address.
Krishnamurthy col. 3,11. 48—51 (emphasis added).
another exemplary network prefix/netmask entry format 240 may
also be configured as xl.x2.x3.x4/l as in routing tables at ARIN,
AT&T, CANET, NLANR and VBNS, where xl.x2.x3.x4 is the
prefix and 1 is the netmask length. For example, 128.148.0.0/16
stands for 128.148.0.0/255.255.0.0, where 128.148.0.0 and
255.255.0.0 are network prefix and netmask.
Krishnamurthy col. 4,11. 53—59 (emphasis added).
In other words, Krishnamurthy describes a client cluster with common
network address prefix as well as netmask information for concealed
portions of IP addresses which includes a netmask length. However, the
Examiner has not shown where Krishnamurthy teaches both a prefix length
of the site-specific address and a prefix length of an aggregate route address
of the first service provider, as required by claim 1.
Contrary to the claimed aggregate-aware route including a prefix of a
site-specific address, and two prefix lengths, one for the site-specific address
and one for the aggregate route address, Krishnamurthy merely describes a
shared prefix for common network addresses and a netmask written in the
format of netmask length. At best, we find that Krishnamurthy describes a
prefix of a site-specific address and a prefix length of the site-specific
address, but fails to describe a prefix length of the aggregate route address.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Krishnamurthy’s
prefix and netmask length describe the claimed “the first aggregate-aware
route including a prefix of a site-specific address, a prefix length of the site-
4
Appeal 2014-007650
Application 11/508,660
specific address and a prefix length of an aggregate route address of the first
service provider,” as recited in independent claim 1 with commensurate
limitations in each of the remaining independent claims. Since we agree
with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not
reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claims 1—26.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—26 is reversed.
REVERSED
5