Ex Parte Nelsen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2018

14065664 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/065,664 10/29/2013 David Mark Nelsen
27060 7590 12/13/2018
ZIOLKOWSKI PATENT SOLUTIONS GROUP, SC (EATON)
136 S WISCONSIN ST
PORT WASHINGTON, WI 53074
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
13-ICD-492
(ETC7455.140)
CONFIRMATION NO.
6392
EXAMINER
WU,JIANYE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2018 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):
info@zpspatents.com
sml@zpspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID MARK NELSEN
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-20. Appellant has canceled claim 6. See App. Br. 25. We
have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies Eaton Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to "a
communication bridge to facilitate direct and transparent communication
between differing protocols." Spec. ,r 1. In a disclosed embodiment, the
communication network is one located within a motor vehicle. Spec. ,r,r 16-
1 7, Fig. 1. According to the Specification, common networking protocols
used by various devices within a motor vehicle include Controller Area
Network (CAN) and Local Interconnect Network (LIN). Spec. ,r 2. "[A]
LIN bus hardware transceiver cannot be connected directly to a CAN bus
hardware transceiver" due to the different networking protocols. Spec. ,r 4.
The disclosed communication bridge serves to interface with a first network
comprising transceiver devices compliant with a first networking protocol
( e.g., CAN) and a second network comprising transceiver devices compliant
with a second networking protocol (e.g., LIN). Spec. ,r,r 7, 17, Fig. 1. The
communication bridge receives data from, for example, the first network and
changes the data format (i.e., the first networking protocol) to a bridge
format of the communication bridge. Spec. ,r 8. If the data is intended to be
communicated to a device on the second network, the communication bridge
will change the data format from the bridge format to a second data format
(i.e., the second networking protocol). Spec. ,r 8. In a disclosed
embodiment, the communication bridge maintains a list of device addresses
that associates the device with the network on which they are connected.
Spec. ,r 7.
Claim 8 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
2
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
8. A method for communicating between differing protocols,
the method comprising:
receiving, at a communication bridge, a first message from
a first address in a first communication network, the first address
being associated with a device on the first communication
network;
changing the format of a data package from the first
message from a first format of the first communication network
to a bridge format of the communication bridge;
associating the first address of the first communication
network with a second address in a second communication
network, the second address being associated with a device on
the second communication network;
changing the format of the data package from the bridge
format of the communication bridge to a second format of the
second communication network; and
sending a second message with the data package to the
second address of the second communication network using the
second format.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 8, 9, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 4--6.
2. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Vermeulen et al. (US 2013/0070783 Al; Mar. 21,
2013 (filed Sept. 21, 2011)) ("Vermeulen") and Jeon et al. (US
2008/0304499 Al; Dec. 11, 2008) ("Jeon"). Final Act. 6-15.
3
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
ANALYSIS 2
Re} ection under 3 5 US. C. § 101
Appellant disputes the Examiner's conclusion that claims 8, 9, 12, and
13 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. App. Br. 4--8; Reply
Br. 2---6. In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner oversimplifies what
the claims are directed to and asserts the claims are not directed to an
abstract idea, but rather, provide a technological improvement to allow
device-to-device communication when the devices use different networking
protocols. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4--5. Moreover, Appellant contends the
claims recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. App. Br. 7-8;
Reply Br. 5---6.
The Supreme Court's two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). If a claim falls within one of the
statutory categories of patent eligibility (i.e., a process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter) then the first inquiry is whether the
claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
If so, the second step is to determine whether any element, or combination of
elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355.
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
July 17, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed November 27, 2017
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed September 27, 2017 ("Ans.");
and the Final Office Action, mailed February 16, 2017 ("Final Act."), from
which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
Although the independent claims each broadly fall within the statutory
categories of patentability, the Examiner concludes the claims are directed to
a judicially recognized exception-i.e., an abstract idea. Final Act. 4--6. In
particular, the Examiner concludes the claims are directed to the abstract
idea of "general changing data format." Final Act. 4; Ans. 16. Further, the
Examiner concludes the claims do not recite significantly more to transform
the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 16-
17. Instead, the claims recite generic computer functions/elements
performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine,
and conventional. Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 16-17.
Instead of using a definition of an abstract idea, "the decisional
mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in which a similar
or parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what prior cases were about, and
which way they were decided." Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); accord United
States Patent and Trademark Office, July 2015 Update: Subject Matter
Eligibility 3 (July 30, 2015), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/ieg-july-2015-update.pdf (instructing Examiners that "a claimed
concept is not identified as an abstract idea unless it is similar to at least one
concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea"). As part of this
inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior
art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded
subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted).
5
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
Our reviewing court has concluded that abstract ideas include the
concepts such as the collection and analysis of information. Elec. Power,
830 F.3d at 1353. Further, the collecting of data, recognizing certain data
within the collected data set, and storing the data in memory are also abstract
ideas. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Additionally, "creating an index and
using that index to search for and retrieve data" is an abstract idea.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 201 7). Also, although not binding on us, we note that other courts have
also concluded that translating data into a new form is an abstract idea. See
Novo Transforma Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 669 F. App'x 555
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished per curiam mem.) (affirming district court's
grant of summary judgment of invalidity of patent as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter that was directed to nothing more than the
abstract idea of translation of a data from one format to another); Broadband
iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom, Inc., 669 F. App'x 555 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(unpublished per curiam mem.) (affirming district court's grant of summary
judgment of invalidity of patent as being directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter that was directed to nothing more than the abstract idea of translation
of a data from one format to another); see also Yodlee, Inc. v. Plaid Techs.
Inc., Civil Action No. 14-1445-LPS, 2016 WL 2982503, at *25 (D. Del.
May 23, 2016) (finding claims directed to an abstract idea because they are
"focused on the idea of translating data into a new form, but they say almost
nothing about how that translation must occur" (emphasis omitted)).
Further, merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the
combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F .3d
6
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another
abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-abstract."); see also
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) ( determining the pending claims were directed to a combination
of abstract ideas).
Here, Appellant's claims are generally directed to collecting,
analyzing, and translating data from one format to another format. This is
consistent with Appellant's description of the claimed invention as relating
to "a communication bridge to facilitate direct and transparent
communication between differing protocols." Spec. ,r 1. As set forth in
claim 8, data having a first format is received from a first device on a first
communication network. The device is associated with a first address. The
format of the received data is changed (i.e., translated) to a bridge format
(i.e., an intermediate format used by a communication bridge). The address
of the first device is associated with a second device on a second
communication network. The data (in a bridge format) is then translated to a
second format (i.e., the format associated with the second communication
network) and transmitted to the second device.
The receiving of data from a first device, translating it to another
format (twice), and sending the data to a second device is similar to the
collection and manipulation of data, which has been held to be abstract. See
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353; Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
839 F.3d 1138, 1142, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Novo Transforma, 669
F. App'x at 555; Yodlee, 2016 WL 2982503, at *25. Additionally,
associating the address of one device with the address of another device is
similar to the abstract idea of using an index (i.e., the first address) to search
7
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
for and retrieve data ( the address of the second device). Intellectual
Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1327. Neither these steps, nor those recited in the
dependent claims (which provide additional details on the association of
addresses, including using a lookup table, identifying a processor to perform
the association, and directly sending data between the first and second
communication networks) alter the character of the claims, which are
directed to an abstract idea, discussed supra.
Also, Appellant's argument (see App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4) that the
claims are directed to a technological improvement, similar to the patent-
eligible claims in Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2016), is also unavailing. In Enfzsh, the court explained, "the first step in the
Alice inquiry ... asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process
that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely
as a tool." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Appellant's claimed invention is
unlike the "self-referential table," which was a "specific improvement to the
way computers operate," held to be not abstract in Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336.
Instead, the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea ( the translation of
data from one format to another) and merely use a computer as a tool.
Because we determine the claims are directed to an abstract idea or
combination of abstract ideas, we analyze the claims under step two of Alice
to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an
ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to "significantly more" than
the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73, 77-79 (2012)). The
implementation of the abstract idea involved must be "more than [the]
8
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
performance of 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities
previously known to the industry."' Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347-
48 (alteration in original) ( quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
Appellant generally asserts that the claims recite significantly more
than the abstract idea because the "conversion between a first format and a
bridge format and between the bridge format to a second format constitutes a
meaningful improvement over prior art technologies." Reply Br. 5; see also
App. Br. 7-8.
As an initial matter, as discussed above, the conversion (i.e.,
translation) of one data format to another is the abstract idea. Under the
second step of the Alice inquiry, we search for additional limitations that
individually, or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more
than the abstract idea-i.e., the search for an inventive concept. See Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355. Appellant does not identify additional limitations
beyond the abstract idea to transform the subject matter of the claims into a
patent-eligible application. Rather, as Appellant states in the Specification,
it is known for "conventional systems [to] incorporate various interface
devices [(e.g., a communication bridge)] to facilitate communication
between different types of data links." Spec. ,r 5. Thus, contrary to
Appellant's assertion, the claims do not recite a meaningful improvement
over prior art technologies. Further, we agree with the Examiner that the
steps of receiving and sending formatted data are well-understood, routine,
and conventional activities. Final Act. 5; see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and
sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not
9
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
even arguably inventive."). Thus, the claims fail to recite significantly more
than the abstract idea.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 9, 12,
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We note, sua sponte, that claim 10 depends from claim 9 and further
recites setting up a lookup table based on an initial address message received
from the first communication network having a CAN protocol, and that
claim 11 depends from claim 8 and defines the first communication network
as being either a CAN or LIN bus and the second communication network
being the other of a CAN and LIN bus. Neither of the limitations changes
the character of the claims as a whole, nor do they amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea itself. Similarly, we note that although
independent claims 1 and 14 recite additional hardware (e.g., interfaces,
drivers, internal memory, modules, and processors), they are still directed to
the abstract idea of translating data from one format to another format. The
recited hardware components are generic components performing functions
that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See, e.g., buySAFE, 765
F.3d at 1355; Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811
F.3d 1314, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding generic computer components
such as an "interface," "network," and "database," fail to satisfy the
inventive concept requirement); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. In the event of
further prosecution, we invite the Examiner to consider whether claims 10
and 11 recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 3
3 Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b ), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so.
10
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
Rejection under 35 USC§ 103
a. Claims 1-3, 8, 11, 13-17, and20
Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 each generally recite, inter alia,
receiving data conforming to either a first or second networking protocol
format, and converting the received data format to a "bridge format" of the
communication bridge. Additionally, independent claims 8 and 14 also
recite converting the data from the bridge format to either the first or second
networking protocol format, as appropriate.
Appellant argues that Vermeulen and Jeon, either alone or in
combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest converting received data
having a first or second networking protocol to a bridge format and/or
converting (internal) bridge formatted data to data having a first or second
networking protocol prior to being transmitted from the communications
bridge device. App. Br. 14--17; Reply Br. 6-10. In particular, Appellant
asserts that although Vermeulen describes a communications network,
comprising a communications controller, that facilitates communication
among communication devices, the devices and communication controller of
Vermeulen are all compliant with the FlexRayâ„¢ protocol. App. Br. 10-16;
Reply Br. 6-8. Thus, Appellant argues, Vermeulen fails to teach converting
data from the devices to an intermediate bridge format by the
communications controller. App. Br. 14. Rather, the communications
controller in Vermeulen merely "selectively blocks and selectively forwards
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th ed. Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018).
11
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
data received on different data transmission buses or branches in the
communications network." App. Br. 14 (quoting Vermeulen ,r 23).
Similarly, Appellant asserts Jeon fails to teach converting data to an
intermediate bridge format. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 8-10. Rather,
Appellant asserts, Jeon describes managing a network having a plurality of
different protocols by directly converting from a first (i.e., sending) protocol
to a second (i.e., receiving) protocol. App. Br. 13, 16-17. However,
Appellant argues there is no teaching of converting data to/from an
intermediate bridge format. App. Br. 16-17.
We disagree. As Appellant acknowledges, Vermeulen describes a
communications network comprising a communications controller and a
plurality of buses and devices. Vermeulen ,r,r 21-24, Fig. 1. Figure 1 of
Vermeulen (as relied on by the Examiner) is illustrative and is reproduced
below:
'
102-1
i 02-2
i02-8
108· 1
I
r'
108-2--/
COMMU1~•CATIONS NtiWCH!(
r1os-s
102-7
COMMUNIC:i\TIO\S GiJNrnOLLER
Sl.DTTA81.t. ,..--1%
STORAGE UN!T ,,,
Sl.DTTABIJ /
168
ADDRESS SYSTEM ·,
l-1()4
10'.?·3
i02-6
108·4
)
I
---------------------·---------------------- -----··-----·------·-------- ------------
12
FIG. 1
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
Figure 1 of Vermeulen illustrates an embodiment of the disclosed
communications network and controller. Vermeulen ,r 20. Vermeulen
describes this embodiment as a plurality of communication devices ( 102-1-
102-8) connected to communications controller (104) on a plurality of buses
(108-1-108-6). Vermeulen ,r,r 21-24. Vermeulen describes this
embodiment as all devices are communication nodes of a FlexRay â„¢
communication system-a type of communications protocol. Vermeulen
,r 24. Additionally, Vermeulen teaches:
[A] sub-bus or other communications link/device is connected to
a bus in the communications network and communication nodes
that perform non-critical applications are connected to the sub-
bus or other communications link/device. For example, a
gateway or a bridge can be used to connect the [Communications
Controller (104)] to a Local Interconnect Network (LIN) bus, a
Controller Area Network (CAN) bus, or an Ethernet bus, which
is connected to external communications devices.
Vermeulen ,r 24. In other words, in this example, rather than a
homogeneous network of FlexRay â„¢-compliant components, additional
devices that comply with, for example, the CAN and LIN protocols are
contemplated.
The Examiner "interprets that the gateway/bridge ... is part of
controller 104." Final Act. 7. Additionally, the Examiner finds "it is
inherent/obvious that data in [a] first interface protocol format (one of LIN
or CAN) must be converted to the bridge format FlexRay" in order for the
controller (104) to receive and further process the data. Final Act. 10-11
(citing Vermeulen ,r 24). Further, the Examiner finds Jeon teaches "a
gateway with different protocol interfaces and converted data format from
one to another in order to communicate with each other." Final Act. 11.
13
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
Examples include converting data to/from CAN/FlexRay, LIN/FlexRay, and
LIN/CAN. See Jeon i1 18, Fig. 2.
In other words, the Examiner finds, in the disclosed alternative
embodiment of Figure 1 of Vermeulen that also includes CAN- and LIN-
based devices, the communications controller further comprises additional
gateway/bridge capability. As taught by Jeon, the gateway converts data
from one format to another format. Thus, the combination of Vermeulen
and Jeon teaches, or reasonably suggests, an embodiment wherein: (i) a
device on a LIN bus transmits data intended to be received by a device on a
CAN bus; (ii) the gateway/bridge part of the communications controller
translates the data from the LIN protocol to the FlexRayâ„¢ protocol; (iii) the
communication controller further decides when to selectively forward the
data; (iv) the data is translated by the gateway/bridge part of the
communications controller from the FlexRayâ„¢ protocol to the CAN
protocol; and (v) the data is sent from the communications controller to the
device on the CAN bus. Thus, as the Examiner explains, the "FlexRay
compatible protocol is considered as a bridge format/protocol and LIN and
CAN are considered as the first protocol and the second protocol." Ans. 18.
Appellant's arguments (see App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 7-8) that even
though Vermeulen discloses the use of different protocols, there is no
disclosure of converting data from a first protocol to a bridge protocol and
then to a second data protocol are unpersuasive. Jeon teaches various
converting units (i.e., gateway/bridge devices) to convert between LIN-
CAN, LIN-FlexRayâ„¢, and FlexRayâ„¢-CAN. See, e.g., Jeon ,r,r 16-18,
Fig. 3. When combined with the alternate embodiment of Figure 1 of
Vermeulen ( e.g., a communications network further comprising CAN and
14
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
LIN buses and devices), we agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would understand and appreciate the translation of data from a
first protocol (e.g., LIN) to the FlexRayâ„¢ protocol (i.e., the protocol used
by the communications controller) and the further translation of data to the
second protocol (e.g., CAN), as described above.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 8 and, for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claims 1 and
14, which recite commensurate limitations. Additionally, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 11, 13, 15-17, and 20, which depend
directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. See App.
Br. 10; see also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
b. Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 18, and 19
Claim 4 depends indirectly from claim 1 and recites:
in setting-up the initial association between the addresses of each
of the one or more devices using the first communication
network and the addresses of each of the one or more devices
using the second communication network, the first master
application processor is further programmed to generate a lookup
table.
Dependent claims 10 and 18 recite commensurate limitations.
The Examiner finds Vermeulen teaches, inter alia, a first master
processor generates a lookup table. Final Act. 13 (citing Vermeulen ,r,r 28-
31, Figs. 1, 3--4).
Appellant argues that Vermeulen describes generating "a slot table
entry address for accessing a slot table entry of a slot table for purposes of
setting time slots for sending/receiving data and/or determining what
15
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
operation to perform in each time slot." App. Br. 17-18 (citing Vermeulen
,r 29). Appellant asserts that such use is not what is recited in the claims.
App. Br. 18. Rather, the claims require generating a lookup table based on
an initial association between the addresses of devices of the first
communication network and the addresses of devices on the second
communication network.
We find Appellant's argument persuasive. The Examiner's findings
relate to Vermeulen's disclosure of looking up slot table entry addresses.
See Ans. 19-20 ( citing Vermeulen ,r,r 28-31 ). Additionally, the Examiner
finds Vermeulen teaches table entries contain communications configuration
information for the communication nodes, "which clearly implies all
connection establishing parameters including addresses of the respective
communication nodes." Ans. 20 (citing Vermeulen ,r 2). Although, as
discussed above, Vermeulen contemplates a communications network
comprising a plurality of network protocols, the Examiner has not provided
sufficient persuasive evidence or technical reasoning that Vermeulen
suggests a lookup table based on an initial association between the addresses
of devices of the first communication network and the addresses of devices
on the second communication network.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 10, and
18. Similar to claim 4, claim 9 also recites a lookup table containing an
association of address of devices on a first communication network with
addresses of devices on a second communication network. Thus, for similar
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9.
Additionally, claim 5 depends from claim 4 and claim 19 depends from
16
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
claim 18, and each of these claims, therefore, shares the same deficiency.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 19.
c. Claims 7 and 12
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites "based on the conversion of
data between the first format and the bridge format and between the second
format and the bridge format, data can be directly sent between the first
communication network and the second communication network." Claim 12
depends from claim 8 and recites a similar limitation.
In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner finds Vermeulen teaches sending
data directly between a first communication network and a second
communication network. Final Act. 14 (citing Vermeulen ,r,r 24, 55, Fig. 1).
Appellant asserts that the example of Vermeulen relied on by the Examiner
does not teach directly sending data between a first and second
communication network based on the conversion of data between the first
format and the bridge format and between the bridge format and the second
format, as required by the claim language. App. Br. 20-22. Appellant
asserts this is because the embodiment described is a homogeneous network
not requiring the translation of data protocols. App. Br. 20-22.
We find Appellant's arguments persuasive of Examiner error.
Although, as discussed above, Vermeulen contemplates a communications
network comprising a plurality of communication network protocols (i.e.,
data formats), such an embodiment requires a gateway/bridge interface to
perform the translation and the Examiner has not shown with sufficient
persuasive evidence or reasoning that this embodiment allows data to be
17
Appeal 2018-001481
Application 14/065,664
"directly sent between the first communication network and the second
communication network," as required by claims 7 and 12.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 12.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8, 9, 12, and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 8, 11, 13-17,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12,
18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18