Ex Parte J¿nsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

12865918 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/865,918 08/03/2010
27045 7590
ERICSSON INC
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
MIS EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
03/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ulf Fredrik J lnsson
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.
P24520-US1 7433
EXAMINER
BELANI, KISHIN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
kara.coffman@ericsson.com
kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULF FREDRIK JONSSON and HENRIK BASILIER
Appeal2014-003163
Application 12/865,918
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-12 and 14--17. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below with certain disputed limitations
emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for allowing both network devices desiring a local
address and network devices desiring a wide area network
(WAN) address to obtain Internet Protocol (IP) addresses via a
local area network (LAN) comprising:
1 Claim 13 is cancelled.
Appeal2014-003163
Application 12/865,918
receiving a message from an end user device connected
to said LAN wherein said end user device is requesting an IP
address;
determining whether said end user device is a locally
addressable device or a WAN addressable device;
forwarding said IP address request toward a WAN when
said end user device is said WAN addressable device;
storing, as route entry information, a returned IP address
for said WAN addressable device; and
routing information locally over said LAN which is
addressed to said WAN addressable device using said stored
route entry information.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-12, and 14--17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Park (EP 1613022 Al; pub. Jan. 4, 2006).
Final Act. 2-10.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park in view of Staats (US 7,783,800 B2; filed Apr. 15,
2005; iss. Aug. 24, 2010). Final Act 11-12.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park in view ofDroms (US 7,937,494 B2; filed Sept. 1,
2005; iss. May 3, 2011). Final Act. 12-13.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Park discloses the disputed "storing" and
"routing" limitations of claim 1 by storing DHCP [Dynamic Host
2
Appeal2014-003163
Application 12/865,918
Configuration Protocol] data in a DGIP2 Assignment Table 1112 and routing
a DHCP ACK message to a GIP host by
'send[ ing] in' the packet to the premises LAN [Local Area
Network] segment ... by using the GIP [Global IP] address
assigned by the original DHCP server ... to find the
corresponding MAC [Media Access Control] address in the
PHIMT (Premise Host IP and MAC Table) table for the
targeted DGIP host.
Ans. 15.
Appellants argue "the IP address assigned to the GIP host by the GIP
host's DHCP is not used for routing the local communications," but rather "a
falsified IP address is used." App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Appellants
further argue that, for certain DHCP messages (e.g., the Offer and NAK), the
subnet mask changing step is skipped but "stored route entry information"
from Park's DGIP assignment table 112 is not used either. Reply Br. 2.
Appellants also argue the Examiner's finding that "the DHCP proxy uses a
GIP address assigned by the original DHCP server to a destination DGIP
host to find a corresponding MAC address in the PHIMT" is not borne out in
the disclosure of Park and, instead, "the PHIMT uses a host's MAC address,
not its GIP address, as a key value." Id. (emphasis added) citing Park i-f 83.
We are persuaded the cited portions of Park do not disclose the
"routing" limitation of claim 1 and in particular, do not disclose that an IP
address provided by an original DHCP server is used to route a packet. Cf
Ans. 15 citing Park i-f 94, Figs. 9, 11. Rather, Park's DHCP proxy server
changes, among other fields, the "source MAC address into the MAC
address of the BRG [Bridge Residential Gateway] and [the] source IP
2 The acronym "DGIP" is not defined in Park, although the acronym "GIP"
is defined as Global IP, where IP stands for Internet Protocol. See Park i-f 6.
3
Appeal2014-003163
Application 12/865,918
address into the IP address of the BRG 1130" prior to "sending in" the
packet. Park i-f 94. Further, we agree with Appellants that the MAC address,
and not its GIP address, is used as a key with respect to the PHIMT. Id. at i-f
83.
Claim 12 recites "a route entry information table for storing in said
router, information used for routing IP packets transmitted from a locally
addressable device to said WAN addressable device over said LAN."
Similarly with respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds the DGIP Assignment
table 1112 as well as Figures 1 la-1 ld and paragraphs 83-85 and 94 of Park
discloses this limitation of claim 12. Final Act. 7-8. Appellants argue that
"the information stored in Park's DGIP Assignment table 1112 is not used
for 'routing IP packets ... ' as claimed" for the reasons discussed above with
respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6-7. We agree that the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence in the cited portions of Park to support the
finding that Park discloses using information from Park's DGIP Assignment
table 1112 to route IP packets, because Park uses a "falsified subnet mask"
instead. See e.g., Park i-fi-1 18, 94.
Claim 1 7 recites "receiving a returned IP address for said WAN
addressable device from a dynamic host configuration protocol (DHCP)
server in the WAN and forwarding said IP address to said WAN addressable
device." The Examiner finds Figure 9 and paragraph 73 of Park disclose
this limitation of claim 17. Final Act. 10. Appellants argue that Park
"teaches falsifying a GIP host's IP address .... by a DHCP proxy server that
changes IP configuration information in a DHCP Ack message from a
remote DHCP server before sending it to the GIP host." App. Br. 7 citing
Park i-fi-133, 39. We are persuaded by Appellants' argument; Park discloses
4
Appeal2014-003163
Application 12/865,918
"the DHCP proxy server intercepts and changes some critical information in
the Ack message delivered from the original DHCP server" including "the
subnet mask, the DHCP server ID, the lease time and other information and
configures the DGIP client host with this changed information." Park i-f 73.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Park discloses "the DHCP proxy
server ... changes [the] source MAC address into the MAC address of the
BRG and source IP address into the IP address of the BRG." Id. at i-f 94.
Accordingly, we agree that that the Examiner has not identified sufficient
evidence in the cited portions of Park to support the finding that Park
discloses forwarding the IP address returned by the DHCP server to the
DGIP host.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-
3, 5, 6, and 8-12, and 14--17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Park, nor the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park in view of Staats, nor the rejection of claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park in view of Droms.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-12 and 14--17 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5