10101667 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2009)

Ex Parte Loukianov

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 25, 2009

10101667 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DMITRII LOUKIANOV ____________ Appeal 2008-3997 Application 10/101,667 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Decided:1 March 25, 2009 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and ST JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2008-3997 Application 10/101,667 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention Appellant’s invention relates to data networks. More particularly, Appellant’s invention is directed to an enhanced residential gateway and associated methods for dynamic packet forwarding in a residential gateway. (Spec. para. [0001]). Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: receiving a packet for transmission to a wide area network (WAN) from one of a plurality of coupled clients; analyzing at least a subset of content of the received packet to identify one or more characteristics of the received packet; and filtering the received packet by selectively modifying the received packet in accordance with one or more predefined routing parameters obtained from a routing parameters database based, at least in part, on the identified one or more characteristics of the received packet. 2 Appeal 2008-3997 Application 10/101,667 Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following references: Garahi US 6,754,188 B1 Jun. 22, 2004 Kung US 6,373,817 B1 Apr. 16, 2002 Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 12, 13, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Garahi. 2. Claims 1-11 and 14-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garahi and Kung. CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 12. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS Appellant contends that Garahi fails to disclose the limitation of filtering a packet by selectively modifying the packet. (App. Br. 7). EXAMINER’S FINDINGS The Examiner determined that Garahi discloses filtering a packet by selectively modifying the packet in accordance with one or more predefined routing parameters associated with the identified packet characteristics. (Ans. 4 and 14) 3 Appeal 2008-3997 Application 10/101,667 ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in determining that Garahi discloses filtering a packet by selectively modifying the packet? (see independent claims 1, 12, and 27). PRINCIPLES OF LAW Claim Interpretation The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). During prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Anticipation “Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as 4 Appeal 2008-3997 Application 10/101,667 in the claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984). For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference. However, this is not an “ipsissimis verbis” test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). FINDINGS OF FACT In our analysis infra, we rely on the following findings of fact (FF) that are supported by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. Garahi discloses that in an ad-hoc network, each node can examine the contents of the data packets and change their routing as necessary to compensate for changes in conditions along the routing path. (Col. 8 ll. 21-29). 2. Garahi discloses that the routing address is attached to the packets in the form of a header. (Col. 7 ll. 19-21). ANALYSIS At the outset, we broadly but reasonably interpret the language of claim 12 to construe the function of “filtering” as “selectively modifying the received packet.” (See also independent claims 1 and 27). As noted above, Appellant contends that instead of teaching filtering the packet by selectively modifying the packet, Garahi teaches examining 5 Appeal 2008-3997 Application 10/101,667 packets and changing the packet’s routing, which is not equivalent to the filtering function recited in claim 12. We disagree. We find that Garahi discloses packets which include routing addresses in the header of the packet. (FF 2). As noted by the Examiner, it is our view that after examination, if the routing of a packet is to be changed, the routing address is modified in accordance with a predefined routing parameter. (See FF 1 and Ans. 14). Thus, we find that Garahi discloses filtering by selectively (i.e., examination of initial routing) modifying the packet (i.e., modifying the routing address), as recited in claims 12 and 27. Based on the record before us, we find Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in determining that Garahi discloses filtering a packet by selectively modifying the packet. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13, and 27 as being anticipated by Garahi under 35 U.S.C. §102(e). Section 103 rejection of claims 1-11 and 14-31 We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 14-31 as being unpatentable over Garahi and Kung. We note that Appellant essentially restates the same arguments that were discussed supra with respect to claim 12 (App. Br. 10). Appellant also contends that Kung fails to cure the deficiencies of Garahi. (Id.). We find no deficiencies with Garahi. We have fully addressed Appellant’s arguments supra and have found those arguments to be unpersuasive. 6 Appeal 2008-3997 Application 10/101,667 Based on the record before us we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 14-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garahi and Kung for the same reasons discussed supra regarding claims 12 and 27. CONCLUSION Appellant has not established that the Examiner erred in determining that Garahi discloses filtering a packet by selectively modifying the packet. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 and 14-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED pgc INTEL/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP 1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY SUNNYVALE CA 94085-4040 7