Ex Parte Johnsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

13060973 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)

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.
13/060,973 03/22/2011 Andreas Johnsson 0110-332/P26382US1 2855
113648 7590 02/21/2017
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404-7999
EXAMINER
JOSHI, SURAJM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS JOHNS SON and AYODELE DAMOLA
Appeal 2016-006974
Application 13/060,9731
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to “preserving the privacy of a user when
accessing a peer to peer (P2P) network.” Spec. 11.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
L M Ericsson (publ). App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006974
Application 13/060,973
1. A method for protecting an identity (IP) of a user
connected via an access network to a peer to peer network, from
other users of the peer to peer network, the method comprising:
receiving, at the access network, a request from the user
for using the peer to peer network, the request including at least
a first identity of the user (IP) and data related to content stored
or desired by the user,
associating the first identity (IP) of the user with a second
identity (IPP2P), different from the first identity (IP), wherein a
relationship between the second identity (IPP2P) and the first
identity (IP) of the user is generated by the access network; and
transmitting the second identity (IPP2P) instead of the first
identity (IP) to the peer to peer network together with the data
related to content from the request, such that the first identity
(IP) of the user is not provided to the peer to peer network,
wherein the access network intermediates an access of the
user to Internet, and the user and the other users of the peer to
peer network communicate with the peer to peer network via
Internet.
Rejection
Claims 1—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Gabber et al. (EP 0 855 659 Al; July 29, 1998); Scarlata
et al., Responder Anonymity & Anonymous Peer-to-Peer File Sharing, 9th
Inf 1 Conf. on Network Protocols 272—80 (2001); and Mittal et al. (US
2007/0094279 Al; Apr. 26, 2007). Final Act. 4.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Gabber and
Scarlata teaches or suggests “receiving, at the access network, a request from
the user for using the peer to peer network, the request including at least a
first identity of the user (IP) and data related to content stored or desired by
the user” and “transmitting the second identity . . . together with the data
related to content from the request,” as recited in claim 1?
2
Appeal 2016-006974
Application 13/060,973
ANALYSIS
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Answer and the action from which this appeal is taken. We
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend Gabber does not teach or suggest a request
containing both an identity and “data related to content stored or desired by
the user.” App. Br. 7—9. However, we agree with the Examiner that Gabber
teaches “a request (clicking/entering of URL) for content (home page/web­
site services)” in which the HTTP protocol includes information about the
requesting computer (e.g., an IP address to receive the requested content).
Ans. 12—13. Appellants contend an “Internet address is not data related to
the content, but is merely a pointer to the content that may be downloaded in
the browser when the website is accessed,” analogizing an Internet address
to a box labeled “5” in a room filled with boxes where “5” gives no
indication of the box’s contents. Reply Br. 1—3. However, Appellants’
argument ignores the breadth of the claim as presently written (i.e., any
“data related to content stored or desired by the user”). Moreover,
Appellants’ analogy is artificial when applied to the actual technology. If a
box is labeled “Shoes” then one would expect the contents of the box to be
shoes, just as one would expect the Internet address of
https://www.uspto.gov to be related to content of the USPTO.
Appellants also argue Gabber does not teach a peer-to-peer network.
App. Br. 8—9. However, the Examiner relies on Scarlata for teaching the
claimed peer-to-peer network, not Gabber. Ans. 13. “Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
3
Appeal 2016-006974
Application 13/060,973
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants also have not sufficiently explained any error in the
Examiner finding Gabber teaches or at least suggests a processor, an
input/output unit, a network address translator, or a computer readable
medium for independent claims 11 and 20. Ans. 16—17; App. Br. 9-10;
Reply Br. 9; see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 11, 20, and 21, and their dependent claims 2—10, 12—19, and 22—
26, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br.
9-10; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
4