Ex Parte McDysan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2010

10023043 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID E. MCDYSAN
____________

Appeal 2008-005963
Application 10/023,043
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2008-005963
Application 10/023,043

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-24. The Appellant appeals
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

INVENTION
The Appellant describes the invention at issue on appeal as follows.
[A] plurality of ingress routers [are] coupled to egress routers
for communication utilizing the network-based VPN [i.e.,
virtual private network] protocol that logically partitions intra-
VPN and extra-VPN traffic, such that denial of service attacks
on the access link originating from sources outside the VPN are
prevented. In other words, traffic in a particular VPN is
separated or partitioned based on the source of the traffic,
i.e., whether the traffic originated within the VPN (intra-
VPN) or outside of the VPN (extra-VPN).
(Appeal Br. 7.)

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
1. A network system providing a virtual private network
(VPN), said network system comprising:
one or more egress routers having connections to an
access network including an access link, wherein said one or
more egress routers transmit intra-VPN traffic to a destination
host belonging to the VPN from sources within the VPN within
a first access network logical connection for intra-VPN traffic
and all extra-VPN traffic to the destination host from sources
outside the VPN within a second access network logical
Appeal 2008-005963
Application 10/023,043

3
connection for extra-VPN traffic, separate from the first access
network logical connection; and
a plurality of ingress routers coupled to the one or more
egress routers for communication utilizing a network-based
VPN protocol that logically partitions intra-VPN and extra-
VPN traffic, such that denial of service attacks on said access
link originating from sources outside the VPN are prevented.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,768,271 ("Seid").
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Seid.
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
Appellant's admitted prior art and Seid.

ISSUE
The Appellant stipulates that "all of the appealed claims stand or fall
together as a group with exemplary independent claim 1." (Appeal Br. 6.)
Therefore, we will decide the appeal of claims 1-24 based on claim 1 alone.
The Examiner find that "Seid discloses a network system providing a virtual
private network (VPN), said network system comprising: one or more egress
routers having connections to an access network including an access link
(Figs. 1-3) . . . ." (Ans. 3.) The Appellant argues that "Nothing, repeat
nothing, is said about segregating, within the same VPN, intra-VPN
traffic from extra-VPN traffic." (App. Br. 10.) Therefore, the issue before
us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Seid logically partitions
intra-VPN and extra-VPN traffic by transmitting traffic from sources within
Appeal 2008-005963
Application 10/023,043

4
the VPN to a destination belonging to the VPN via a first access network
logical connection and transmitting traffic from sources outside the VPN to
the destination via a second access network logical connection.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Figure 1 of Seid follows.

"FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of a frame relay network having a
plurality of prior art virtual private networks . . . ." (Col. 4, ll. 31-33.)

ANALYSIS
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only
if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim, and that
Appeal 2008-005963
Application 10/023,043

5
anticipation is a fact question . . . ." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Here, the network
shown in Figure 1 of Seid logically partitions intra-VPN and extra-VPN
traffic. More specifically, it transmits traffic from sources within VPN3
(viz., the rightmost and bottommost nodes in VPN3) to a destination
belonging to the VPN (viz., the leftmost node in VPN3) via a first access
network logical connection (viz., the double-headed arrows connecting the
three nodes in VPN3). It also transmits traffic from sources outside the VPN
(e.g., NODE D) to the destination (viz., the leftmost node in VPN3) via a
second access network logical connection (viz., the double-headed arrow
connecting NODE D to the leftmost node in VPN3).
Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, we conclude that the
Examiner did not err in finding that Seid logically partitions intra-VPN and
extra-VPN traffic by transmitting traffic from sources within the VPN to a
destination belonging to the VPN via a first access network logical
connection and transmitting traffic from sources outside the VPN to the
destination via a second access network logical connection.

DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-24.

Appeal 2008-005963
Application 10/023,043

6
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk

VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909