Ex Parte Lynn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2017

13732906 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 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.
13/732,906 01/02/2013 Thomas William Lynn JR. 26141.0066U1 4964
16000 7590
Comcast
c/o Ballard Spahr LLP
999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
ELMEJJARMI, ABDELILLAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2017 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):
USpatentmail@ballardspahr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS WILLIAM LYNN JR., YASH LACHMANDAS
KHEMANI, HENRY LU, and PHILLIP ANDREW SANDERSON
Appeal 2017-006153
Application 13/732,906
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—7, 9-14, and 16—22, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-006153
Application 13/732,906
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
networking. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
determining location information of one or more network
access points;
selecting a routing device based upon the location
information;
establishing communication between the one or more
access points and the select routing device to define a mobility
group comprising the one or more access points, wherein
establishing communication to define the mobility group
comprises provisioning a plurality of encapsulation tunnels
from the one or more access points to the routing device; and
assigning an address to a user device in communication
with at least one of the one or more network access points of
the mobility group, wherein the mobility group is configured,
by the plurality of encapsulation tunnels, to allow the user
device to roam among the one or more access points based on
the address.
References and Rejections
Claims 1—7, 9-14, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Roese (US 7,898,977 B2, Mar. 1, 2011), Mckeown
(US 2004/0261116 Al, Dec. 23, 2004), and Sood (US 2007/0064661 Al,
Mar. 22, 2007).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Roese, Mckeown, Sood, and Gould (US 2005/0015810 Al, Jan. 20,
2005).
2
Appeal 2017-006153
Application 13/732,906
Claims 18—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marin (WO 2012/035366 Al, Mar. 22, 2012), Sood1, and
Mckeown.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Roese, Mckeown, Sood, and Fiorone (US 2010/0002578 Al, Jan. 7,
2010).
ANALYSIS2
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Roese,
Mckeown, and Sood collectively teach “wherein the mobility group is
configured, by the plurality of encapsulation tunnels, to allow the user
device to roam among the one or more access points based on the address,”
as recited in independent claim 1. See App. Br. 5—8; Reply Br. 1.
The Examiner finds:
Regarding independent claim L the cited reference [Sood]
discloses in |0014 a method for maintaining a consistent IP
tunnel while roaming across networks. More specifically,
according to an embodiment of the present invention, a mobile
router (“MR”) may enable existing VPN tunnels to persist,
even when MN 125 roams, which reads on the limitation of a
mobility group configured by a plurality of encapsulation
tunnels to allow the user device to roam among access points.
Ans. 3^4; see also Final Act. 3^4.
1 The Examiner has corrected the heading of the rejection regarding Sood
(Ans. 4).
2 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issues are
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal 2017-006153
Application 13/732,906
The cited portion of Sood does not describe how the mobility group is
configured, let alone “wherein the mobility group is configured, by the
plurality of encapsulation tunnels, to allow the user device to roam among
the one or more access points based on the address,” as required by the
claim. Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how
the cited portion of Sood teaches the disputed claim limitation.
Further, as applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Roese and
Mckeown do not remedy the deficiencies of Sood. See Final Act. 2—3.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Independent claim 9 recites a claim limitation that is substantively
similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See App. Br. 16 (Claims
App’x) (claim 9). Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 9.
Independent claim 18 recites “wherein the first access point and the
second access point are both configured to maintain service for a user
device based on an address provisioned to the user device and the
encapsulation tunneF (emphases added). The Examiner again cites Sood’s
paragraph 14 for teaching the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 9; Ans. 4—
5. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claim 1, the cited portion
of Sood does not describe how the first access point and the second access
point are configured, let alone “wherein the first access point and the second
access point are both configured to maintain service for a user device based
on an address provisioned to the user device and the encapsulation tunnel, ”
as required by claim 18 (emphases added). Because the Examiner fails to
4
Appeal 2017-006153
Application 13/732,906
provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are
constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2—7, 10-14, and 16, 17, and 19—22. Although the Examiner cites
additional references for rejecting dependent claims 16 and 21 (depending
from claims 1 and 9), the Examiner has not shown the additional references
overcome the deficiency discussed above regarding the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 9. See Final Act. 7—8, 10.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 9—14, and
16-22.
REVERSED
5