Ex Parte Lin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201613387319 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/387,319 01/26/2012 Tao Lin 82929510 5716 56436 7590 12/30/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 EXAMINER RIVAS, SALVADOR E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2479 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 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 chris. mania @ hpe. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAO LIN and JIANFENG LIU Appeal 2016-001449 Application 13/387,3191 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN R. KENNY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—17, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Technology The application relates to “processing packets in an IPv6 network.” Abstract. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the limitations at issue emphasized: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hangzhou H3C Technologies, Co., Ltd., which is wholly-owned by Hewlett-Packard Company. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-001449 Application 13/387,319 1. A method for processing packets in an IPv6 network by a CPE (Customer-Premises Equipment) that is to communicate with an NPE (Network-Premises Equipment), the method comprising: replacing source address information in an IP packet with external address information after receiving the IP packet from a user terminal, storing a mapping relation between the source address information and the external address information, wherein the external address information is information of an address allocated to the CPE that is used for communications between the CPE and devices outside of a network containing the CPE and the user terminal; converting the IP packet into an IPv6 packet, and transmitting the IPv6 packet to an NPE via an IPv6 tunnel between the CPE and the NPE; receiving a second IP packet from the NPE via the IPv6 tunnel, converting the second IP packet according to destination address information in the second IP packet, replacing the destination address information in the converted second IP packet with the source address information corresponding to the destination address information in the mapping relation, and transmitting the second IP packet to the user terminal. Rejections Claims 1—5, 7, and 11—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Chen (US 2007/0258399 Al; Nov. 8, 2007) and Bound et al., Dual Stack Transition Mechanism (July 2002). Final Act. 3. Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Chen, Bound, and Park et al. (US 2006/0092964 Al; May 4, 2006). Final Act. 14. Claims 8—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Chen, Bound, and Babbar et al. (US 2006/0029096 Al; Feb. 9, 2006). Final Act. 15—16. 2 Appeal 2016-001449 Application 13/387,319 Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Chen, Bound, and Breau et al. (US 8,478,891 Bl; July 2, 2013). Final Act. 19.2 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding Chen teaches or suggests “replacing source address information in an IP packet with external address information” and “converting the IP packet into an IPv6 packet,” as recited in claim 1 ? ANALYSIS Except as noted below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and in the Answer. We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Claim 1 recites “replacing source address information in an IP packet with external address information” and “converting the IP packet into an IPv6 packet.” Appellants contend “the Examiner has clearly failed to establish that the proposed combination of Chen and Bound discloses both of these features.” App. Br. 8 (emphasis added). However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Chen teaches “the inter-working unit converts an address of internet packet according to the second internet protocol {IPv4) into an address according to the first internet protocol (Ipv6) to form the internet packets according to the first internet protocol {IPv6).” Chen | 8 (emphasis added). 2 Claims 18—21 were also rejected as obvious. Final Act. 21, 29. However, Appellants later filed an amendment canceling claims 18—21, which the Examiner entered. See Advisory Action (June 25, 2015). 3 Appeal 2016-001449 Application 13/387,319 “The examiner equates the Appellant’s source address information with Chen’s IPv4 address” and “equates the Appellant’s external address with Chen’s IPv6 address.” Ans. 3. Appellants have not sufficiently persuaded us of why these interpretations are in error. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner finding Chen teaches or suggests “replacing source address information in an IP packet with external address information.” Appellants also have not sufficiently persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Chen teaches or suggests “converting the IP packet into an IPv6 packet.” For example, Chen teaches “to encapsulate IPv6 internet packets as IPv4 internet packets” (19); “to de-encapsulate IPv6 internet packets received from the GPRS network as IPv4 internet packets” (19); and “to convert an address of the internet packets according to the first internet protocol (IPv6) into an address according to the second internet protocol (IPv4) to form the internet packets according to the second internet protocoF and vice versa (1 8). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—17, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 12-16; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—17. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation