Ex Parte KachiDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 7, 200910337311 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 7, 2009) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation