Ex Parte Jong

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2015

11987659 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EDUARD K. DE JONG
____________

Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1–5, 11–15, and 26–31, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosed “invention relates to communication messages
and the way they are transmitted.” (Spec. ¶ 2.) More particularly, “[i]n
certain embodiments, the communication messages may include at least a

1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Oracle America, Inc..
(Br. 1.)
Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

2
header and a payload and the header may include units of data, such as at
least a destination ID and data to determine a return destination ID.” (Id.)
Claims 1 and 11, which are illustrative, read as follows:
1. A method of exchanging a series of communication
primitives during communication sessions between two
communication units, the method comprising:
with a second communication unit, providing a first
communication primitive including at least a first destination
ID identifying a first communication unit as a receiver of the
first communication primitive;
with the second communication unit, providing first data
in the first communication primitive, the first data indicating a
first return destination ID identifying the second
communication unit as a sender of the first communication
primitive;
determining, by the first communication unit using the
first data, a second destination ID included in a second
communication primitive sent from the first communication
unit to the second communication unit, the second destination
ID identifying the second communication unit as a receiver of
the second communication primitive;
determining, by the second communication unit during
the communication sessions, second data provided in the
second communication primitive indicating a second return
destination ID identifying the second communication unit as a
sender of a third communication primitive, wherein the second
data differs from the first data;
providing the third communication primitive including
the second data; and
sending, by the second communication unit, the third
communication primitive including the second data to the first
communication unit.
11. A communication port for a transceiver communication
unit arranged to operate as a sending communication unit to
send a series of communication primitives during a
Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

3
communication session to one or more further communication
units, and as a receiving communication unit to receive a series
of communication primitives during the communication session
from the one or more further communication units, wherein the
communication primitives each comprise:
a destination ID identifying the transceiver
communication unit or the one or more further communication
units as receiver of the communication primitives;
data indicating a return destination ID that identifies the
transceiver communication unit or the one or more further
communication units as a return address for a possible return
communication primitive from the receiver identified by the
destination ID;
wherein the transceiver communication unit comprises:
a port logic controller arranged to change
the data indicating the return destination ID during
a communication session when the transceiver
communication unit operates as sending
communication unit; and
wherein the communication port comprises:
a memory storing a destination table
including destination records with different return
destination ID's assembled by the port logic
controller for communication primitives previously
sent to the one or more further communication
units,
wherein when the transceiver communication unit
operates as receiving communication unit, the port logic
controller establishes whether a received communication
primitive is addressed to the transceiver communication unit by
comparing the destination ID of the received communication
primitive with the return destination IDs.

Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

4
Claims 1–5, 26–27, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kawasaki et al. (US 2003/0076794 Al; published Apr.
24, 2003; hereinafter “Kawasaki”). (Ans. 4–9.)
Claims 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huffman et al. (US 2004/0123221 Al; published June 24,
2004; hereinafter “Huffman”) and Kawasaki. (Ans. 10–13.)
Claims 12–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huffman, Kawasaki, and Singh (US 7,336,682 B2; Feb.
26, 2008). (Ans. 13–15.)
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kawasaki and Huffman. (Ans. 16.)
Claims 29–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kawasaki and Singh. (Ans. 16–18.)
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Brief (“Br.”
filed Jan. 31, 2012) for the positions of Appellant and the Answer (“Ans.”
mailed Mar. 27, 2012) for the positions of the Examiner. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments that Appellant does not make in the Brief have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2011).

ISSUES
Based on Appellant’s arguments (see Br. 6–16), we discuss the appeal
by reference to claims 1 and 11. The issues presented by Appellant’s
arguments are as follows:
Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

5
Does Kawasaki disclose:
a second communication unit . . . providing first data in [a] first
communication primitive, the first data indicating a first return
destination ID identifying the second communication unit . . .
[,] determining, by the second communication unit during the
communication sessions, second data . . . a second return
destination ID identifying the second communication unit as a
sender of a third communication primitive, wherein the second
data differs from the first data[, and] providing the third
communication primitive including the second data . . . [,]
as recited in claim 1?
Does the combination of Huffman and Kawasaki teach or suggest “a
port logic controller arranged to change the data indicating the return
destination ID [of a transceiver communication unit] during a
communication session when the transceiver communication unit operates as
sending communication unit” (hereinafter the “return destination ID
limitation”), as recited in claim 11?
Does the combination of Huffman and Kawasaki teach or suggest:
a memory storing a destination table including destination
records with different return destination ID's assembled by the
port logic controller for communication primitives previously
sent to the one or more further communication units, wherein
when the transceiver communication unit operates as receiving
communication unit, the port logic controller establishes
whether a received communication primitive is addressed to the
transceiver communication unit by comparing the destination
ID of the received communication primitive with the return
destination IDs
(hereinafter the “destination table limitation”), as recited in claim 11?

Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

6
ANALYSIS
Initially, we note, as does the Examiner (see Ans. 18), that claims 1
and 11 stand rejected on different grounds of rejection. Nevertheless,
Appellant has commingled arguments for the patentability of claim 11 with
the arguments for the patentability of claim 1. (See e.g., Br. 7.) In
considering Appellant’s arguments, we treat all of the arguments made under
the heading “Rejection of Claims 1–5, 26, 27, and 31 Under 35 U.S.C. §102
is Improper Based on Kawasaki” (Br. 6) as being directed to the rejection of
claim 1, even though claim 11 is mentioned. (See Br. 6–13; see also Ans.
18–20.) Although we have considered all of Appellant’s arguments relating
to claim 11, for purposes of this opinion, we treat Appellant’s arguments
made under the heading “Rejection of Claims 11 and 15 Under 35 U.S.C.
§103 Based on Huffman and Kawasaki is Improper” (Br. 13) as being
Appellant’s arguments directed to the rejection of claim 11. (See Br. 13–15;
see also Ans. 27–36.)
CLAIM 1
The Examiner finds Kawasaki discloses the invention recited in claim
1. (Ans. 5–7 (citing Kawasaki ¶¶ 54–56, 74–81; Figs. 9–12); see also Ans.
20–26.) The Examiner explains, inter alia, as follows: “[S]ee figure 9 with
paragraphs 0074–0075, a message flow from client to server where response
message from server with message source Id [sic] and destination ID being
translated in load distribution device before returning it to the client with
corrected destination and source address.” (Ans. 6.) The Examiner
construes the “destination ID” as follows: “It[’]s merely an ID that
identifies [a] message and route[s] [the] message based on [the] ID[;] it
Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

7
would have been a sequence ID, sequence number, or ack number.” (Ans.
24.)
Appellant asserts that, according to claim 1 as properly construed,
“the second communication unit sends consecutive messages to the first
communication unit with return destination IDs that differ from each other.”
(Br. 12.) We do not agree the claim requires that the messages be
consecutive. Rather, we conclude that the messages, i.e., the first and third
communication primitives, must be separate sequential messages, and the
third primitive must be sent later than the first primitive. We otherwise
agree with Appellant’s proposed claim construction. We further conclude
that, in the context of claim 1, the plain meaning to those of ordinary skill in
the art of “destination ID” is an identifier that specifies the intended
recipient of a communication primitive, and a “return destination ID” is an
identifier that specifies the intended recipient of any responses sent by the
intended recipient in response to the primitive, i.e., the sender of the
communication primitive. This meaning is consistent with Appellant’s
Specification (see, e.g., Figs 10a–11a, 13a–b), and is the broadest reasonable
interpretation. Finally, we observe that claim 1 specifies the intended
recipient identified by each destination ID or return destination ID. Thus,
we find under the broadest reasonable construction of claim 1, that the
second communication unit sends sequential messages to the first
communication unit with return destination IDs which differ from each other
but yet each identify the second communication unit as the sender of the
communication primitive.
In finding claim 1 anticipated, it is unclear whether the Examiner
relies on Kawasaki’s disclosure of translating the addresses in a packet
Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

8
during message flow from the client to the server, the reverse, or both (see
Ans. 6–7), or on Kawasaki’s disclosure of changing message header
information other than the source and destination IDs, i.e., Kawasaki’s
sequence ID, sequence number, or ack number (see Ans. 20–26). In either
case, we find the relied on passages of Kawasaki do not meet the limitations
of claim 1.
As discussed supra, claim 1 requires two sequential communication
primitives sent by a sending communication unit to have differing return
destination IDs. Kawasaki’s disclosure of translating or correcting source
IDs does not meet this limitation because in a translation (or correction)
process it is a single message or primitive that has different addresses before
and after translation or correction, and, furthermore, the untranslated version
of the message is sent by the server or client (see Kawasaki Fig. 9) to a URL
load distribution device while the translated version of the message is sent
by a URL load distribution device (see id.), i.e., they are not both sent by a
“second communication device,” as recited in claim 1.
Further, Kawasaki’s disclosure of changing, in sequential messages,
message identifying parameters other than an identifier that specifies a
return destination does not meet the argued limitation under the broadest
interpretation of “return destination ID” discussed supra. Although we
agree with the Examiner that a “return destination ID” is not limited to being
an IP address of a message source (Ans. 24), it is unreasonable to read the
phrase so broadly as to encompass information in the header that does not
identify the message source, such as Kawasaki’s sequence ID, sequence
number, or ack number.
Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

9
We are persuaded the passages of Kawasaki relied on by the
Examiner do not disclose each and every element as set forth in the claim,
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir.
1987), arranged as in the claim, In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir.
1990), in as complete detail as in the claim, Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Therefore, Appellant has persuaded
us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–5 and 26–31, which depend from claim 1.
CLAIM 11
Return Destination ID Limitation
Appellant contends as follows:
[I]ndependent claim 11 is similar to claim 1 in that a
transceiver, when acting as a sending communication unit, acts
to change, during a communication session, the data it sends
out indicating its returned destination ID. Hence, to show, the
port of claim 11, the combined teaching must show a
communication devices [sic] that changes its own return
destination ID within a single communication session.
(Br. 13.) However, as the Examiner notes (see Ans. 27), the scope of claim
11 differs from the scope of claim 1. For example, we conclude claim 11
does not preclude the recited “change [of] the data indicating the return
destination ID [of a transceiver communication unit] during a
communication session” from encompassing changing the return destination
ID of a single communication primitive, i.e., message, such as by a
translation or correction process.
Appellant contends “the router of Huffman is never the originating
device for a communication session but merely routing messages.” (Br. 14.)
However, claim 11 does not require that the communication transceiver,
Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

10
acting as a sending unit, originate the communication primitive, only that it
send it. (Cf. Ans. 19.) Further the Examiner relies on Huffman’s router to
teach the recited “port logic controller” (Ans. 10), mapping the transceiver
communication unit to a combination of the host port 20 (Huffman Fig. 2)
with the router 30 (id.) (see Ans. 11), and such a combination would
originate as well as send messages.
Appellant contends as follows: “Huffman never discusses providing a
return destination ID at all let alone one that changes within a single
communication session (e.g., where does Huffman show ‘when I route this
message I identify myself as X and when I route this message I identify
myself as Y for return messages’?).” (Br. 14.) To the extent Appellant
argues that “X” and “Y” must be associated with different messages, the
argument is unpersuasive in light of our claim construction supra.
The Examiner finds Huffman teaches the router 20 (i.e., “port logic
controller”) changes a header of a message (i.e., “communication primitive”)
during a communication session. (Ans. 10–11 (citing Huffman ¶¶ 27–33).)
As highlighted by the Examiner (Ans. 30), Huffman teaches modification of
a routing header may include “constructing a reverse path back to the host
port 20” (Huffman ¶ 32), i.e., changing the return destination ID. For
emphasis only, we note that, cumulatively with Hoffman, Kawasaki teaches
changing message headers, including changing an IP source/destination
address to a translated IP source/destination address (see Kawasaki Fig. 10),
i.e., changing destination IDs and return destination IDs during a
communication session.
Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

11
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has failed to persuade us that the
combination of Huffman and Kawasaki does not teach or suggest the return
destination ID limitation, as recited in claim 11.
Destination Table Limitation
The Examiner relies on Kawasaki, when combined with Huffman, to
teach the destination table limitation mapping Kawasaki’s address
translation table 101a, 201a (Kawasaki Figs. 3, 10) to the recited destination
table. (Ans. 11–12 (citing Kawasaki ¶¶ 31–33, 39–42, 53–60); see also
Kawasaki ¶¶ 74–81.)
Appellant contends as follows:
[Kawasaki] merely describes a conventional NAT [(network
address translation)] process. Kawasaki never discusses a
transmitting device creating a table in its memory storing the
return destination IDs (which change during a session) it
provides in transmitted messages. Hence, this reference does
not teach that a receiving device would be able to determine
which messages are meant for it by performing a lookup or
even by using the NAT process.
(Br. 15.) However, in accordance with our claim construction discussed
supra, a translation process such as taught by Kawasaki teaches return
destination IDs which change during a session. Further, as highlighted by
the Examiner (Ans. 35), Kawasaki teaches that the address translation table
is created as follows:
The address generating section 101 selects one IP source
address for the translated from the address pool 101b, and
matches the values of the input interface, the IP source address
and the output interface which are in the input packet, to the
selected translated IP source address and the newly generated
translation ID, and stores them in the address translation table
101a.
Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

12
(Kawasaki ¶ 56 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶¶ 74–81.) Thus, Kawasaki
teaches “a memory storing a destination table [(Kawasaki’s address
translation table)] including destination records with different return
destination ID’s [(Kawasaki’s selected translated IP source address and the
newly generated translation ID)] assembled by the port logic controller
[(Kawasaki’s header translation device)] for communication primitives
previously sent to the one or more further communication units,” as recited
in claim 11.
Appellant contends that Huffman does not teach “a transceiver unit
operating as a receiver unit” as recited in the destination table limitation of
claim 11 because “Huffman . . . never mentions inspecting a later received
message to determine if it is an addressee (e.g., the host port 20 does not
inspect messages on a shared communication structure to determine if their
destination ID matches one of the return destination IDs it previously sent
out).” (Br. 15.) We note, as pointed out supra, the Examiner relies on
Huffman’s host port 20 (Huffman Fig. 2) together with router 30 (id.) to
teach the recited transceiver communication unit (see Ans. 11).
The Examiner explains as follows:
Examiner considers that Huffman also the port logic controller
[router] establishes whether a received communication
primitive is addressed to the transceiver communication unit by
comparing [verification and updating routing header] the
destination header of the received communication primitive
with the return destination header [router, upon verification,
updating communication header with new routing header, or
updated routing header, see figures 5A–5B with paragraphs
0049–0055].
(Ans. 30 (brackets in original).) The Examiner further explains Huffman’s
“disclosure is all about routing packet to the appropriate communication
Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

13
entity by modifying or updating the routing header and when required,
modifying the reverse packet header [such as destination address] with new
routing header information and forwards the packet to the updated header.”
(Ans. 33 (brackets in original; emphasis omitted).)
We agree with Examiner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that Huffman’s combination of a router and host port would also
receive packets (i.e., communication primitives) from devices 40A–D
(Huffman Fig. 2) and would perform the same process on packets from
devices 40A–D intended for communication port 20 (id.) as are performed
on packet 10 (id.). For emphasis only, we note that, cumulatively with
Huffman, Kawasaki is directed to exchanging packets between a client C
and a server S (Kawasaki ¶ 74; Fig. 9) and that URL load distribution
system 200 performs IP address translation using the address translation
table 201a (id. ¶ 76; Fig. 10) on the data packets (i.e., communication
primitives) that are the objects of the exchange.
Appellant indicates that Appellant is confused as to how Huffman
could teach “when the transceiver communication unit operates as receiving
communication unit, the port logic controller establishes whether a received
communication primitive is addressed to the transceiver communication unit
by comparing the destination ID of the received communication primitive
with the return destination IDs,” as recited in the destination table limitation
of claim 11 if it does not teach the destination table. (Br. 14.) However, the
Examiner relies on a combination of Huffman and Kawasaki to teach the
destination table limitation of claim 11. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is
unpersuasive because “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

14
combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981)
(citations omitted). For emphasis only, we note that the test of non-
obviousness is what the references, when considered together, would suggest
to one of ordinary skill in the art,” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, who is a person
of ordinary creativity and not an automaton, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007), and whose inferences and creative steps we may
consider, id. at 418.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has failed to persuade us that the
combination of Huffman and Kawasaki does not teach or suggest the
destination table limitation as recited in claim 11.
Summary
Appellant does not persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection over Huffman and Kawasaki of claim
11 and claim 15, which depends from claim 11 and was not separately
argued with particularity (see Br. 15). Appellant contends Singh does not
cure the deficiencies of Huffman and Kawasaki, but does not otherwise
separately argue with particularity the patentability of claims 12–14, which
depend from claim 11. (See id.) Accordingly, for the same reasons as for
claim 11, we sustain the rejection over Huffman, Kawasaki, and Singh of
claims 12–14.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 11–15 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–5 and 26–31 is
reversed.
Appeal 2012-010025
Application 11/987,659

15
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc