Ex Parte Koehler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2016

13172545 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/172,545 06/29/2011 Y annick Koehler
56436 7590 05/25/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82690141 7493
EXAMINER
HANIDU, GANIYU A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YANNI CK KOEHLER
Appeal2014-008462
Application 13/172,545
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-008462
Application 13/172,545
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's present application relates to using a wireless, short range
communication protocol to establish a connection between two devices over
a second, different communication protocol. Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows:
1. A method, comprising:
generating a broadcast packet at a first device including an
internet protocol address of the first device;
transmitting the generated broadcast packet through a first
protocol, the first protocol being a wireless, close-by
communication protocol, wherein the transmission of the
generated broadcast packet is not solicited by a second device;
and
receiving, in the first device, a communication from the
second device via the internet protocol address communicated in
the broadcast packet through a second protocol that is different
from the first protocol, wherein the second protocol comprises a
set of rules that the first device and the second device use to
communicate packets of data over a local area network.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Waters (US 7,356,011 Bl; Apr. 8, 2008) and Shen (US 2009/0029728
Al; Jan. 29, 2009). See Ans. 3-8.
Claims 9-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Waters and Salmonsen (US 2006/0026162 Al; Feb. 2, 2006). See Ans.
8-18.
2
Appeal2014-008462
Application 13/172,545
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the
combination of Waters and Shen does not teach "'receiving, in the first
device, a communication from the second device via the internet protocol
address communicated in the broadcast packet through a second protocol
that is differentfrom the first protocol."' App. Br. 12-13 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Waters teaches a master device generating a
broadcast discovery packet including a unique IP address to other devices on
a network. Ans. 21 (citing Waters 4:39-51, 6:5-23). The Examiner finds
the master device receives a response communication through the device
addressing protocol (DAP) and configuration protocol (CP). Id. The
Examiner finds the broadcast packet is transmitted using Internet Control
Message Protocol (IcMP) and concludes this corresponds to the claimed
"first" protocol. Id. The Examiner finds the response communication is
transmitted using DAP and CP, collectively the "second" protocol. Id.
Appellant's argument has persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding the cited combination teaches or suggests the "receiving" limitation
because, contrary to the Examiner's finding, the master device's broadcast
packet and the second device's response use the same protocol. The portion
of Waters cited by the Examiner as teaching that the broadcast packet uses
the ICMP protocol and not the DAP protocol does not support the
Examiner's finding. Instead, Waters teaches DAP is an "encapsulating
protocol" that "can be layered on top of a protocol stack, such as TCP/IP."
Waters 4:25-51. Waters explains that "DAP and CP can be used to easily
discover and configure devices on a network." Waters 6:5-6. "To begin
discovering other devices on a network, the computer 102 broadcasts 202 a
3
Appeal2014-008462
Application 13/172,545
discovery packet. This packet is a DAP packet that encapsulates a CP
method request." Waters 6:35-39. Thus, Waters teaches that the broadcast
packet is a DAP packet that includes CP commands and that this packet is
sent over a network using a protocol such as TCP/IP (or ICMP). See Waters
4:25-51, 6:5-59. Although this packet may be transported using ICMP, as
stated by the Examiner, the packet still conforms to the DAP and CP
protocols. Id. As found by the Examiner, the response communication from
the second device also conforms to the DAP and CP protocols. Ans. 22
(citing Waters 4:18-5:67, 6:35-7:3, 7:15-45). Accordingly, based on the
record before us and by a preponderance of the evidence, we conclude the
Examiner erred in finding Waters teaches "a second protocol that is different
from the first protocol."
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellant's
argument has persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, independent claims 9
and 17, which recite similar limitations, and claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20
dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4