Ex Parte Luft et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2017

13633228 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2017)

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.
13/633,228 10/02/2012 Achim Luft P51041US 6725
31817 7590 02/08/2017
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
c/o CPA GLOBAL
900 2nd Avenue South, Suite 600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
ASEFA, DEBEBE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2017 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):
IPDocketing @ S CHWABE.com
intelpatent @ schwabe. com
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ACHIM LUFT and MUTHAIAH VENKATACHALAM
Appeal 2016-006206
Application 13/63 3,22 s1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—5, 8—12, 15—18, 21, and 23—25. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to communication devices.
Spec 13. Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A network communication device comprising:
a packet generator to generate a packet including data for
a remote communication device and a header that includes an
identifier to identify a type of communication service for the
data, wherein the type is an internet protocol multimedia
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Corporation
(Appellants’ Appeal Brief, filed November 25, 2015 (“App. Br.”) 2).
Appeal 2016-006206
Application 13/633,228
subsystem service, a voice over internet protocol service, a
hypertext transport protocol service, or a peer-to-peer service;
and
a transmitter to transmit, over a secure internet protocol
tunnel, the packet via a flow restriction device to the second
communication device, wherein the identifier is to enable the
flow restriction device to determine the type of communication
service for which the secure internet protocol tunnel is
established and either prevent or allow transmission of the
packet through the secure internet protocol tunnel to the remote
communication device based on the type of communication
service.
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kapoor et al. (U.S. 8,402,540 B2,
issued Mar. 19, 2013, “Kapoor”) and Kayalackakom et al. (US
2005/0063381 Al, published Mar. 24, 2005, “Kayalackakom”); claims 8—
12, 15—18, 21, and 23—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kapoor and Goodman et al. (US 8,510,466 B2, issued Aug. 13, 2013,
“Goodman”); and claims 3—5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kapoor, Goodman, and Kayalackakom.2 * * 5
2 The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kapoor and Kayalackakom. Final Act. 5. Claims 3—5
depend from claim 1. Therefore, we assume the Examiner rejects claims 3—
5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kapoor, Kayalackakom,
and Goodman.
2
Appeal 2016-006206
Application 13/633,228
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—5, 8—12, 15—18, 21, and
23-25?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites an “identifier” that identifies a type of communication
service as an internet protocol multimedia subsystem service, a voice over
internet protocol service, a hypertext transport protocol service, or a peer-to-
peer service. Appellants argue that the combination of Kapoor and
Kayalackakom “does not teach or make obvious the ‘identifier’ of claim 1.”
App. Br. 6. The Examiner finds that Kapoor and Kayalackakom discloses
this feature. Ans. 3—7 (citing Kapoor 6:47-48, 34:25—40, 35:25-28, 62:46—
64; Figs. 4, 18). In particular, the Examiner finds that Kapoor discloses a
“service identifier” associated with a “service” that “may be [] peer-to-peer
networking.” Ans. 4—5 (citing Kapoor Fig. 4, 34:31, 35:25—28).
As the Examiner states, Kapoor discloses “identifiers,” including a
“service identifier,” that “encompass[es] metadata related to . . . normalized
data” that is, in turn, “related to a service that is associated with [the] service
identifier.” Kapoor 34:31, 56—57; 35:17—18. Hence, Kapoor discloses an
identifier that encompasses metadata and normalized data that identifies a
“service.” Kapoor also discloses an example in which “the service is a peer-
to-peer networking technology.” Kapoor 35:25—26. In other words, Kapoor
3
Appeal 2016-006206
Application 13/633,228
discloses an identifier that identifies a type of communication service as a
peer-to-peer service, as recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue that Kapoor discloses a “PT field” and an “M-bit
field” but does not disclose that “the PT field should be modified to include
the service identifier 434” or that “the M-bit field would ‘identify a type of
communication service for the data’ as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 6.
Even assuming that Kapoor does not disclose a “PT field” that is “modified
to include the service identifier” or that an “M-bit field would ‘identify a
type of communication service’” as Appellants assert, Appellants do not
demonstrate persuasively that the “service identifier” of Kapoor does not
identify a “service” that is “peer-to-peer networking technology.” As
described above, Kapoor discloses this feature.
Claim 4 recites that the packet comprises an encapsulating security
payload header (ESP header) that comprises the identifier. Appellants argue
that “there is nothing in [Kapoor, Goodman, or Kayalackakom] that would
teach or suggest such an identifier is to be included in an ESP header.” App.
Br. 8. The Examiner finds that Kapoor discloses an “identifier” in a header,
Goodman discloses an ESP “header” and that “messages ... are carried . . .
in . . . ESP in FIG. 8B.” Ans. 9-10 (citing Kapoor 34:31, 36-40, Fig. 4;
Goodman Fig. 8B, 6:13). Hence, the Examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the known
“identifier” in a known “header,” as disclosed by Kapoor, with a known type
of header (i.e., an “ESP header”), as disclosed by Goodman, to achieve the
4
Appeal 2016-006206
Application 13/633,228
predictable result of the known of inclusion of a known identifier in a known
header.
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide a header including an identifier, as
disclosed by Kapoor such that the header is an “ESP” header (as disclosed
by Goodman) because doing so would “protect the . . . network from
security violations” but that “[s]uch protections are provided by the security
mechanisms of Goodman [already]” such that including an “identifier” in
the ESP header of Goodman “would not increase these protections.” App.
Br. 8—9. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The issue before
us is whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have combined the known practice of including an identifier in a header
(Kapoor) with a known header type (i.e., “ESP” header of Goodman), not
whether combining the teachings of the cited references would have resulted
in increased protection from security violations. Regarding the question of
whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
combined the teachings of Kapoor and Goodman, we agree with the
Examiner, as discussed above, that the combination of the known inclusion
of an “identifier” in a “header,” as disclosed by Kapoor with the known type
of a “header” being an “ESP” header, as disclosed by Goodman would have
resulted in the mere predictable result of the known inclusion of a known
identifier in a known header. “The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
5
Appeal 2016-006206
Application 13/633,228
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 4.
Claim 5 recites that a portion of the packet before the ESP header
comprises the identifier. Appellants argue that Kapoor fails to disclose this
feature. App. Br. 9. The Examiner finds that Kapoor discloses a “service
identifier (434)” a “security policy (414). . . associated with identifier (430)
which contains customer identifier (432), service identifier (434), a service
level identifier (438) or another identifier (440). Ans. 11. Hence, the
Examiner relies on Kapoor for teaching a “security policy” that is associated
with an “identifier.” However, the Examiner does not demonstrate
sufficiently that Kapoor also discloses or suggests a location of the identifier
much less that the identifier is located in a portion of a packet before the
ESP header, as recited in claim 5. The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5.
Claim 9 recites that the identifier comprises a “security bootstrap
message.” Claim 9 does not recite or otherwise require any other features or
characteristics of the “security bootstrap message.” Appellants argue that
Kapoor fails to disclose the claimed “security bootstrap message.” App.
Br. 10. The Examiner finds that Kapoor discloses this feature. Final Act. 10
(citing Kapoor 85:12—20). As the Examiner indicates, Kapoor discloses
“sharing and exchange of data” “among participants of the network.” Id. In
other words, Kapoor discloses the exchange of “messages” (or data) between
network participants. Appellants do not explain a meaningful difference
between the data being exchanged (or “messages”) of Kapoor and the
6
Appeal 2016-006206
Application 13/633,228
“message,” as recited in claim 9. In both cases, data (or a “message”) is
provided. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 9.
Claim 10 recites that the identifier comprises an internet key exchange
message. Claim 10 does not recite or otherwise require any other features or
characteristics of the “internet key exchange message.” Appellants argue
that Kapoor fails to disclose the claimed “internet key exchange message.”
App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds that Kapoor discloses this feature. Final
Act. 10 (citing Kapoor 89:23—24). As the Examiner indicates, Kapoor
discloses “IPsec with encryption” and “L2TP inside of IPsec.” Id. In other
words, according to the Examiner, Kapoor discloses a “message” (i.e.,
“IPsec” containing “L2TP”). Appellants do not assert or explain
persuasively a meaningful difference between any of “IPsec” or “L2TP” of
Kapoor and the claimed “internet key exchange message.” The Examiner
did not err in rejecting claim 10.
Appellants do not provide additional substantive arguments in support
of claims 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 15—18, 21, and 23—25 or argument with respect to
Kayalackakom.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kapoor and Kayalackakom; claims 3
and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kapoor,
Kayalackakom, and Goodman; and claims 8—12, 15—18, 21, and 23—25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kapoor and Goodman. We
7
Appeal 2016-006206
Application 13/633,228
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kapoor, Kayalackakom, and Goodman.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8