Ex Parte Overby, Jr. et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 201613547603 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/547,603 07/12/2012 Linwood H. Overby, Jr. RSW920040168US2 (220DIV) 1857 46320 7590 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, EL 33434 12/20/2016 EXAMINER HUYNH, DUNG B. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2469 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2016 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): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LINWOOD H. OVERBY JR., JOYCE A. PORTER, and DAVID J. WIERBOWSKI Appeal 2015-001551 Application 13/547,603 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants request rehearing of our September 30, 2016 decision (“Decision”) affirming the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4—13, and 16— 19. We deny Appellants’ request. Appeal 2015-001551 Application 13/547,603 ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites in relevant part “[a] method comprising . . . locating multiple dynamic filter rules matching a 5-tuple for the packet” and “determining the specific dynamic filter rule from the multiple dynamic filter rules using client identifying information exclusive of the 5-tuple produced for the packet.” App. Br. 18. We concluded these limitations “do[] not preclude searching dynamic rules after locating a matching placeholder.” Decision 5. Appellants argue this conclusion is erroneous because “claim 1 requires determining the specific dynamic filter rule from the multiple dynamic filter rules using client identifying information exclusive of the 5-tuple produced for the packet.” Req. for Reh’g 4. According to Appellants, “[t]his necessarily requires that the multiple dynamic filter rules are located first by matching a 5-tuple for the packet.” Id. Although claim 1 may require “locating multiple dynamic filter rules matching a 5-tuple for the packet” before “determining the specific dynamic filter rule from the multiple dynamic filter rules,” this order of operations does not prohibit first locating a matching placeholder. Claim 1 recites “[a] method comprising’'’ a number of steps, including the “locating” and “determining” steps at issue. The term “comprising” indicates that claim 1 does not preclude performing additional steps such as first locating a matching placeholder. See Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition ‘comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2 Appeal 2015-001551 Application 13/547,603 (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”). Accordingly, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, claim 1 encompasses methods that find a placeholder that matches a packet’s 5-tuple before performing the recited “locating” and “determining” steps. DECISION For the above reasons, we deny Appellants’ request for rehearing. No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). REQUEST DENIED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation