Ex Parte Kachi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 7, 2009

10337311 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 7, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SEIJI KACHI
____________________

Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: August 10, 2009
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-22 which are all the claims in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We affirm the decision of the Examiner.
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

2

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a communication system including a wireless local
area network (LAN) with an access point and method for determining a
system manager that controls access to a server in the LAN. (Spec. 10,
ll. 6-24.)1

Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A wireless Local Area Network (LAN) system,
comprising:
an access point; and
a plurality of terminals which are wirelessly connected to said
access point, and
wherein said access point has a server, and said server treats a
specified terminal of said plurality of terminals based on when said
specific terminal accesses said server as a terminal of a system
manager, and treats a terminal other than said specified terminal of
said plurality of terminals as a terminal of a typical user whose access
to said server is limited by said system manager.

1 We refer to Appellant’s: Specification (“Spec.”), Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.”) filed December 26, 2006, and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 21,
2007. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed April 25,
2007.
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

3
References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Quatrano US 6,748,420 B1 Jun. 8, 2004

Wong US 6,839,735 B2 Jan. 4, 2005

George Coulouris et al., Distributed Systems Concepts and Design,
pp. 178-182 and 449-461 (Addison-Wesley 2d ed. 1994) (hereinafter
“Coulouris”).

Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, p. 476 (Miller Freeman
15th ed. 1999) (hereinafter “Newton”).

Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 8-10, 17, 18, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wong and Quatrano.
The Examiner rejects claims 3-7, 11-16, and 19-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wong, Quatrano, and Coulouris.

ISSUES
Issues 1-3: Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Over Wong and
Quatrano
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner improperly rejected claims 1, 2,
8-10, 17, 18, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, Appellant
contends that the Examiner failed to establish a proper prima facie case of
obviousness for claims 1, 9, and 17, in that the Wong and Quatrano
references do not teach or suggest every limitation of the claims.
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

4
(App. Br. 13.) Appellant also contends that Wong and Quatrano do not
teach each of the limitations recited in dependent claims 2, 10, and 18, or
dependent claims 8 and 22. (App. Br. 15, 16.) Appellant also argues for the
first time in the Reply Brief that Wong and Quatrano do not teach an access
point having a server. (Reply Br. 3.)

Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner found that Wong teaches each feature of Appellant’s
invention (as claimed in independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and dependent
claims 2, 8, 10, 18, and 22) – including a wireless LAN with an access point
having a server and a plurality of terminals (Ans. 3) – except for “selecting
the system manager based on when the terminal accesses the server,” “the
system manager access[ing] the server first,” and “including data indicating
that the terminal is registered as the system manager.” (Ans. 4.) The
Examiner found that Quatrano teaches each of these features. (Ans. 4.) The
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate Quatrano’s
method of providing shared access to an application and authenticating a
shared session owner into Wong’s access control system “because both
[references] disclose ways to control access to shared resources with an
owner.” (Ans. 4.)

Issue 1: Did Appellant demonstrate the Examiner erred in
establishing a proper prima facie case of obviousness for claims in that the
references do not teach or suggest an access point having a server, or
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

5
selecting a terminal as the system manager that limits access to other
terminals based on when the selected terminal accesses the server?

Issue 2: Did Appellant establish the Examiner erred in
determining the references teach or suggest selecting the terminal that first
accesses the server as the system manager?

Issue 3: Did Appellant establish the Examiner erred in
determining the references teach or suggest providing data to the server
indicating that the selected terminal is registered as the system manager?

Issues 4-7: Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Over Wong,
Quatrano, and Coulouris
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner improperly rejected 3-7, 11-16,
and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, Appellant contends that the
Wong, Quatrano, and Coulouris references do not teach or suggest every
limitation of claims 3, 11, and 19. (App. Br. 17-18.) Appellant also
contends that the references do not teach each of the limitations recited
claims 4 and 12, claims 5 and 13, or claims 6, 7, 14, and 15. (App. Br. 18,
19, 20.)

Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner found that the Wong, Quatrano, and Coulouris
references teach each feature of Appellant’s claims 3-7, 11-16, and 19-21.
(Ans. 5-9.)
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

6
With respect to claim 3, the Examiner found that Wong teaches an
access point including a server that stores in a filter table an identification of
each of the terminals that accesses the server. (Ans. 5.) The Examiner
determined that Wong did not explicitly disclose that the terminals are
identified by a MAC address, but that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to use a MAC
address because it is well know in the art that it provides the necessary
identification of the terminals.” (Ans. 6.) The Examiner also found that
Quatrano teaches the terminal that first accesses the server is selected as the
system manager based on the data stored in the filter table. (Ans. 6.) The
Examiner further found that Coulouris teaches storing data indicating the
order in which terminals access a server. (Ans. 6.)
The Examiner determined that one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would realize that storing terminal accesses to a server
in chronological order as taught by Coulouris could be applied to the access
permission fields taught by Wong because Wong’s permission access fields
are “essentially a list;” and “[b]y adding to the list in the manner disclosed
by Coulouris . . . the terminal that made the earliest access can be
determined, which can be used to determine the owner (system manager) if
the owner is supposed to be the first terminal to access the server” as taught
by Quatrano. (Ans. 6-7.) The Examiner also determined that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s
invention to combine the references because both Wong and Quatrano
“disclose ways to control access to shared resources,” and logging clients
contacting a server as taught by Coulouris provides “a way to determine the
first terminal.” (Ans. 7.)
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

7
With respect to claim 4, the Examiner found that Wong teaches
terminals outputting packets to the access point where the packets
necessarily include the identification of the outputting terminal because the
server must know which client sent the request in order to determine if
access should be granted. The Examiner also found that Wong teaches the
access point including a filtering unit which checks the identifier included in
said packet. The Examiner determined that Wong did not explicitly disclose
that the terminal identifier is a MAC address, but “it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s
invention to use a MAC address because it is well know in the art that it
provides the necessary identification of the terminals.” (Ans. 7-8.) The
Examiner based the determination on an “accepted definition for a MAC
address,” as well as knowledge in the art. (Ans. 10.)
With respect to claim 5, the Examiner rejected the claim for the same
reasons as claim 4. The Examiner additionally found that Wong teaches the
server storing the identifier of a terminal that the terminal selected as the
system manager gives permission to access the server. (Ans. 8.)
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the Examiner rejected the claim for the
same reasons as claim 5. The Examiner additionally found that Wong
teaches the filtering unit passing packets inputted to the server, as well as
packets for which identifiers (MAC addresses of the terminals) are stored in
the filter table. (Ans. 8.)

Issue 4: Did Appellant establish the Examiner erred in
determining the references teach or suggest an access point including a
server that stores in a filter table a MAC address identification of each of the
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

8
terminals that accesses the server, data indicating the order in which
terminals access a server, and the terminal that first accesses the server is
selected as the system manager based on the data stored in the filter table?

Issue 5: Did Appellant establish the Examiner erred in
determining the references teach or suggest terminals outputting packets to
the access point, the packets including a MAC address identifier of the
outputting terminal, and a filtering unit checking the identifier?

Issue 6: Did Appellant establish the Examiner erred in
determining the references teach or suggest the server storing the identifier
of a terminal that the system manager gives permission to access the server?

Issue 7: Did Appellant establish the Examiner erred in
determining the references teach or suggest the filtering unit passing packets
inputted to the server, as well as packets for which a MAC address identifier
is stored in the filter table?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
We find that the following enumerated findings are relevant to the
rejections under review and are supported by at least a preponderance of the
evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Office).

Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

9
Wong Reference
1. Wong describes a system and method for controlling access to
information by a user. Wong’s system includes a server computer system
and a number of client computer systems. (Col. 2, ll. 21-56; col. 6, ll. 5-9;
Fig. 2.)
2. Wong describes that the network connecting the server and
clients may be a wireless network including a wireless link. (Col. 4, l. 11 to
col. 5, l. 62; col. 6, ll. 5-9; Fig. 2.)
3. Wong teaches clients sending requests to a server. One of the
clients is an owner client computer system that sends a request to the server
instructing the server to change or grant access permission for the other
clients to particular information on the server, i.e., controls access to
information on the server. (Col. 3, ll. 1-5, 8-10, 14-17; col. 7, ll. 1-7, 55-62;
col. 8, ll. 8-13; col. 9, ll. 14-16; col. 10, ll. 31-56.)
4. Wong describes the server storing access permission
information in a filter table. The filter table stores identification information
for each of the clients that has access to the particular “presence”
information on the server, as well as the type of permission granted to the
clients by the owner client (the client that owns the particular presence
information). (Col. 7, ll. 1-19, 55-62; col. 8, ll. 8-56; Figs. 3, 4.)

Quatrano Reference
5. Quatrano describes a system and method for integrating a
collaboration adapter into a networked computer system to allow multiple
user participants to access a single shared session to a particular application
on a server in the networked system in a collaborative manner. The
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

10
collaboration adapter controls access to shared session, i.e., the application
on the server by the user participants. (Abstract; col. 12, ll. 50-65; Figs. 1,
3.)
6. Quatrano describes the collaboration adapter controlling access
to a shared session in accordance with session identification information
including access control information. The collaboration adapter receives a
first request from a first participant to access a particular application on a
server in a shared session. The collaboration adapter then creates the shared
session identification information that identifies the shared session, the
owner participant (owner of the shared session), and includes the access
control information. The adapter then forwards the request to the
application for processing. (Col. 6, l. 42 to col. 7, l. 6; col. 8, ll. 9-25.)
7. Quatrano teaches that the first participant is the owner of the
shared session. (Col. 8, ll. 9-25.)
8. Quatrano teaches that the collaboration adapter controls access
to the shared session in accordance with an access control list (ACL). The
access control information in the shared session identification information is
the access control list (ACL). A participant owner creates the ACL, and the
ACL controls access to the shared session. (Col. 8, ll. 9-25; col. 28, ll. 4-12,
18-22.)
9. Quatrano teaches that the owner participant, which generally is
the first participant, may transfer ownership of the shared session – to the
first participant, if the first participant is not the owner, or to another
participant – by a transfer shared session ownership command. The adapter
authenticates the owner participant is authorized to transfer ownership.
(Col. 10, ll. 47-58.)
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

11
10. Quatrano teaches that the web server and application server
may be integrated. Quatrano explicitly describes that the web server
including the collaboration adapter does not need to be separate from the
application server including applications requested in shared sessions.
(Abstract; col. 12, ll. 50-65; col. 11, ll. 21-64.)

Coulouris Reference
11. Coulouris describes a server logging process. In the server
logging process, a server stores data, including the order in which clients
transact (request transactions) with the server, i.e., request access to
information or applications. The information may be stored in a table.
(Coulouris, pp. 452-453; Fig. 15.1.)

Newton Reference
12. Newton defines a MAC Address as “[t]he address for a device
as it is identified at the Media Access Control layer in the network
architecture.” (Newton, p. 476.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Burden on Appeal
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

12
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”)
(quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).

Obviousness
A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
406 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 3 (1966).
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art,” and stated that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-16. The Court explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
Id. at 417. The operative question is thus “whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.” Id.
Consistent with KSR, the Federal Circuit recently recognized that
“[a]n obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula
disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

13
common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some
combinations would have been obvious where others would not.” Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416). The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact
that Leapfrog had presented no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in the
combined device was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Id. at
1162.

ANALYSIS
We address only those arguments that Appellant presents in the
Briefs. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Issue 1 – Rejection of Claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant demonstrates that the
Examiner erred in establishing a proper prima facie case of obviousness for
claims in that the Wong and Quatrano references do not teach or suggest an
access point having a server, or selecting a terminal as the system manager
that limits access to other terminals based on when the selected terminal
accesses the server. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9,
and 17 for the reasons that follow.
We find unavailing Appellant’s arguments that Wong and Quatrano
do not teach an access point having a server, or selecting a terminal as a
system manager terminal that limits access to other terminals based on when
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

14
the selected terminal accesses the server. The Wong reference teaches a
LAN with terminals (clients) connected to an access point having a server as
recited in claim 1 (and claims 9 and 17). Wong describes a networked
computer system including a server and a number of client computer
systems. Wong explains that the network linking the clients and server may
be a wireless network including a wireless link, i.e., a wireless local area
network (LAN) including an access point. (FF 1, 2.)
Wong also teaches the other limitations of Appellant’s claim 1 (and
claims 9 and 17), except for selecting a terminal as the system manager that
limits access to other terminals based on when the selected terminal accesses
the server. Specifically, Wong teaches a server selecting a specific client
(terminal) as an owner client. The owner client sets permissions and
controls access to information on the server by other connected clients.
(FF 3.) The client selected by the server manages some aspect of the
networked computer system (access to information on the server), i.e., the
server treats the selected terminal as a system manager which limits other
terminals’ access. Wong does not teach that the selection of the owner client
is based on when the owner client accesses the server; however, this
terminology is merely non-functional descriptive material as it does not
further limit the claimed invention either functionally or structurally. Such
non-functional descriptive material does not patentably distinguish claims
over the prior art that otherwise renders the claims unpatentable.2 Even so,

2 See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Ex parte
Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-89 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing
cases pertaining to non-functional descriptive material).
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

15
as pointed out by the Examiner, this feature is suggested or taught by the
Quatrano reference as we explain below with respect to Issue 2.
From our review of the administrative record, we find that the
Examiner presents a prima facie case for the rejection of Appellant’s
independent claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We agree with the
Examiner that Wong and Quatrano teach each feature of Appellant’s claims,
including an access point having a server, and selecting a terminal as the
system manager that limits access to other terminals based on when the
selected terminal accesses the server. Accordingly, Appellant fails to
demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17.

Issue 2 – Rejection of Claims 2, 10, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant establishes that the
Examiner erred in determining that the Wong and Quatrano references teach
or suggest selecting the terminal that first accesses the server as the system
manager. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 10, and 18
for the reasons that follow.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Wong and
Quatrano do not teach a server treating (selecting) the terminal which first
accesses the server as a system manager terminal. Quatrano describes a
networked computer system, including a server with a collaboration adapter
and multiple connected terminals (participants) accessing a particular
application in a shared session. The server initiates a shared session in
response to a first request from a first participant to access a particular
application on a server. The server (collaboration adapter) then creates the
shared session identification information that identifies the shared session,
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

16
the owner participant (owner of the shared session), and includes access
control information. The server controls access to the shared session
according to the access control information (an access control list (ACL)).
(FF 5-8.) Quatrano does not foreclose integrating the web server application
server and collaboration manager. (FF 10.)
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Quatrano teaches a
terminal selected as a system manger accessing the server first (prior to other
terminals). Quatrano teaches that the first participant is the owner of the
shared session, and that the participant owner creates the ACL. (FF 5-8.)
Thus, the owner participant controls access to the server application (shared
session), and the participant (terminal) that first accesses the server is
selected as the owner participant; i.e., the server treats (selects) the terminal
which first accesses the server as a system manager limiting other terminals’
access. Wong similarly teaches one of the connected client computer
systems is an owner client computer system that sends a request to the server
instructing the server to change or grant access permission for the other
clients; i.e., the owner client sets access limitations for the other clients.
(FF 3.) Therefore, Wong and Quatrano teach the limitations of Appellant’s
claim 2 (and claims 10 and 18), and Appellant fails to demonstrate error in
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

Issue 3 – Rejection of Claims 8 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant establishes that the
Examiner erred in determining that the Wong and Quatrano references teach
or suggest providing data to the server indicating that the selected terminal is
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

17
registered as the system manager. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 8 and 22 for the reasons that follow.
We find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that Wong and Quatrano
do not teach a system manager terminal inputting data to the server
indicating the terminal as being registered as the terminal of said system
manager; i.e., authenticating the system manager terminal. Quatrano teaches
that the owner participant may transfer ownership of the shared session to
another participant by a transfer shared session ownership command. The
collaboration adapter authenticates the owner participant is authorized to
transfer ownership. (FF 9.) Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
Quatrano teaches data input to a server includes data indicating that the
terminal is registered as the system manager. Thus, Wong and Quatrano
teach the limitations of Appellant’s claim 8 (and 22), and Appellant fails to
demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

Issue 4 – Rejection of Claims 3, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant establishes that the
Examiner erred in determining that the Wong, Quatrano, and Coulouris
references teach or suggest a server that stores in a filter table a MAC
address identification of each of the terminals that accesses the server, data
indicating the order in which terminals access a server, and that the terminal
that first accesses the server is selected as the system manager based on the
data stored in the filter table. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 3, 11, and 19 for the reasons that follow.
We find unavailing Appellant’s argument that Wong, Quatrano, and
Coulouris do not teach each of the features of claim 3 (and claims 11 and
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

18
19). Specifically, we find that the references teach a server storing
information in a filter table, including a MAC address of each terminal
accessing the server and data indicating the order in which the terminals
access the server, and that the terminal that first accesses the server is
selected as the system manager terminal based on the data stored in the filter
table.
Wong teaches a server storing in a filter table access permission
information and identification information for each client that has access to
particular “presence” information on the server. (FF 4.) Wong does not
teach that the stored identifying information is a MAC address of a client
that accesses information on the server. However, as explained by the
Examiner, MAC addressing is well known in the art as a means for a server
to identify networked client systems. (FF 12; Ans. 6, 10.) Wong also does
not teach storing the order in which the terminals access the server.
However, Coulouris teaches a server storing data, including the order of
client-server transactions (a server logging process). (FF 11.) As set forth
with respect to Issue 2, Wong and Quatrano teach a server selecting the
client (terminal) which first accesses the server as a system manager
terminal.
It is well within the skill of one in the art to realize that a filter table
as taught by Wong could store the order in which clients access the server as
taught by Coulouris, and to select a client that first accesses the server as the
system manager, as taught by Quatrano, based on the data stored in the filter
table. As explained by the Examiner, it would also have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate MAC addressing into Wong’s
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

19
filter table, in order to identify the clients that access the server. (Ans. 6,
10.)
Thus, in light of KSR and Leapfrog, the evidence provided by the
Examiner supports a finding that combining familiar elements according to
known methods is obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results. The Examiner presents a prima facie obviousness rejection and
Appellant fails to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3,
11, and 19.

Issue 5 – Rejection of Claims 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant establishes that the
Examiner erred in determining that the Wong, Quatrano, and Coulouris
references teach or suggest terminals outputting packets to the access point,
the packets including a MAC address identifier of the outputting terminal,
and a filtering unit checking the identifier. We will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4 and 12 for the reasons that follow.
We find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that Wong, Quatrano, and
Coulouris do not teach each of the features of claim 4 (and claim 12).
Specifically, we find that the references teach a client communicating with
(sending packets to) a server, where the communication (the packets)
includes a MAC address identifier of the communicating client. We also
find the references teach a filtering unit checking the identifier.
Wong teaches client computer systems sending requests to a server,
and the server storing identification information for each client. (FF 3, 4.)
The requests (communications) may be packets of information. Wong does
not teach that the stored identifying information is a MAC address of a
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

20
client. However, as explained with respect to Issue 4, MAC addressing is
well known in the art as a means for a server to identify networked client
systems. (FF 12; Ans. 7-8, 10.) As explained by the Examiner, it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a MAC
address into Wong’s client requests (communications) to identify the clients
that access the server. MAC addressing is well known in a network
environment for identifying network components and facilitating
communication among network components. (Ans. 10.)
Also, as we discussed with respect to Issue 4, Wong teaches a filter
table. Wong’s server determines whether to allow clients to access
information on the server based on information in the filter table; i.e., the
server performs a filtering function (acts as a filter unit) based on the
identifying information in the filter table (checks the identifier). (FF 3, 4.)
Thus, in light of KSR and Leapfrog, the evidence provided by the
Examiner supports a finding that combining familiar elements according to
known methods is obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results. The Examiner presents a prima facie obviousness rejection and
Appellant fails to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4
and 12.

Issue 6 – Rejection of Claims 5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant establishes that the
Examiner erred in determining that the Wong, Quatrano, and Coulouris
references teach or suggest the server storing the identifier of a terminal that
the system manager gives permission to access the server. We will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 13 for the reasons that follow.
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

21
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Wong, Quatrano,
and Coulouris do not teach each of the features of claim 5 (and claim 13).
We find that the references teach the server storing the identifier of a
terminal that the system manager gives permission to access the server for
the reasons set forth with respect to Issues 1, 4, and 5. Accordingly, for all
the reasons noted above, Appellant fails to demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 13.

Issue 7 – Rejection of Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We decide the question of whether Appellant establishes that the
Examiner erred in determining that the Wong, Quatrano, and Coulouris
references teach or suggest the filtering unit passing packets inputted to the
server, as well as packets for which a MAC address identifier is stored in the
filter table. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 14, and
15 for the reasons that follow.
We find unavailing Appellant’s argument that Wong, Quatrano, and
Coulouris do not teach each of the features of claims 6 and 7 (and claims 14
and 15). We find that the references teach allowing access to the requested
information or application – i.e., processing the request or “passing” the
communication (packets) input to the server – for the reasons set forth with
respect to Issues 1, 4, and 5. Accordingly, for all the reasons noted above,
Appellant fails to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6,
7, 14, and 15.

Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

22
Rejection of Claims 16, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant separately argues the patentability of claim 16 reiterating
the reasons set forth with respect to claims 8 and 22 (Issue 3). (App. Br. 21-
22.) For all the reasons noted in the discussion of Issue 3, Appellant fails to
demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
Appellant also separately argues the patentability of claims 20 and 21
reiterating the reasons set forth with respect to claims 3-7, 11-15, and 19
(Issues 4-7). (App. Br. 22-23.) For all the reasons noted in the discussion of
Issues 1 and 4-7, Appellant fails to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 20 and 21.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, we find that Appellant does not demonstrate
that the Examiner erred: (1) in establishing a proper prima facie obviousness
rejection for claims 1, 2, 8-10, 17, 18, and 22 in that Wong and Quatrano
teach: (a) an access point having a server, (b) selecting a terminal as the
system manager that limits access to other terminals based on when the
selected terminal accesses the server, (c) selecting the terminal that first
accesses the server as the system manager, and (d) providing data to the
server indicating that the selected terminal is registered as the system
manager; or (2) in establishing a proper prima facie obviousness rejection
for claims 3-7, 11-16, and 19-21 in that Wong, Quatrano, and Coulouris
teach: (a) access point including a server that stores in a filter table a MAC
address identification of each of the terminals that accesses the server, (b)
data indicating the order in which terminals access a server, (c) the terminal
that first accesses the server is selected as the system manager based on the
Appeal 2008-004296
Application 10/337,311

23
data stored in the filter table, (d) terminals outputting packets to the access
point, (e) the packets including a MAC address identifier of the outputting
terminal, (f) a filtering unit checking the identifier, (g) the server storing the
identifier of a terminal that the system manager gives permission to access
the server, (h) the filtering unit passing packets inputted to the server, and (i)
the filtering unit passing packets for which a MAC address identifier is
stored in the filter table.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

msc

McGinn Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC
8321 Old Courthouse Road
Suite 200
Vienna, VA 22182-3817