Ex Parte Russell et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 20, 2009

09957014 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD FRANCIS RUSSELL, THOMAS ELMER SAMPLES,
and BRENT ALLEN SCHANDING
____________________

Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Decided:1 April 21, 2009
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

2
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to assignment of
internet protocol addresses, and more particularly, to automatically assigning
internet protocol address information to a network device, such as a low-cost
network adapter (Spec. 1, ll. 2-4).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A method of automatically assigning an internet protocol address to a
device, comprising the steps of:

providing a network;

providing a computer communicatively coupled to said network;

providing a network adapter to communicatively couple said device to
said network, said network providing communicative interconnection
between said computer and said network adapter;

said computer performing the steps of:

generating an internet protocol address;

Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

3
incorporating said internet protocol address in an address
resolution protocol probe;

sending said address resolution protocol probe on said network;
and

determining whether a response to said address resolution protocol
probe indicates that said internet protocol address is in use;

wherein if said internet protocol address is not in use, then performing
the step of assigning said internet protocol address to said network adapter
via said network.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Reed US 6,061,739 May 9, 2000
Mellquist US 6,115,545 Sep. 5, 2000
Buse US 6,810,420 B1 Oct. 26, 2004
(filed Jan. 31, 2000)

Troll, DHCP Option to Disable Stateless Auto-Configuration in IPv4
Clients, Network Working Group (1999).

Chesire, 2.3.10 Networks in the Smalll – aka Home Networks (nits) bof,
(2003).

Claims 1, 9, 10, 17, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire.
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

4
Claims 2-6, and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire, and further in view of Reed.
Claims 7, 11-16, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire, and further in view of Mellquist.
Claims 8 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire, and further in view of Mellquist and
Troll.

II. ISSUES
The issues are whether:
(1) the combination of Buse and Cheshire teaches or would have
suggested a computer for “incorporating said internet protocol address in an
address resolution protocol probe,” “sending said address resolution protocol
probe on said network,” and “if said internet protocol address is not in use,
then performing the step of assigning said internet protocol address to said
network adapter via said network” (claim 1); and
(2) it would have been obvious to combine Buse and Cheshire.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.

Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

5
Buse
1. Buse discloses a discovery scheme which can be operated by a proxy
device (2) such as a personal computer coupled to a local area
network (1), and which facilitates the discovery of devices (4) which
may or may not be configured with an IP address (col. 1, ll. 38-42;
Fig. 1).
2. A response from a device with an unconfigured IP address to the
proxy will initiate a process for resolving an IP address and when the
proxy has resolved an IP address for the device, it sends a declaratory
message “YOU ARE” including the allocated IP address to the
device, wherein upon receipt of the “YOU_ARE” message frame, the
device will configure itself with the supplied parameters and respond
with an “I_AM_HERE” message frame (col. 2, ll. 46-58; Fig. 2).
3. If the proxy does not receive a DHCP response (i.e., there is no DHCP
server on the network), the IP address allocation is done by means of
an address resolution protocol (ARP) or an ICMP echo request,
wherein, if there is a conflict with an existing occupied address, the
subprocess is repeated and a new address is generated from the auto
IP range until a free address is found (col. 3, l. 41 to col. 4, l. 4).
Cheshire
4. Cheshire discloses initiating a DHCP Discovery process, wherein, if
no DHCP server is discovered, then sending an ARP probe to verify
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

6
that an IP address is not already in use, and then configuring the
interface with the IP address (p. 3, ll. 8-13).
5. Cheshire is directed to IP based devices that should have “plug and
play behaviour” (p. 2, ll. 7-8) which includes “any printer on the
LAN” (p. 4, l. 8).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'"
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989)). Our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the
claims to specific embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007).
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

7

The Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a
patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” and
discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be
obvious. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
U.S. 1, 12 (1966)). The Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent
that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id.
The operative question in this “functional approach” is thus “whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.” Id. at 1740.
We must determine whether or not the differences between the subject
matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter
as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734. Obviousness determination is not the result of
a rigid formula, and we will consider the facts of a case and the common
sense of those skilled in the art. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007). That is, the test for obviousness is
rather what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

8
V. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 9, and 10
Appellants argue that “[i]n contrast to claim 1, Buse discloses…
obtaining an IP address via either a DHCP request or Automatic Private IP
addressing” (App. Br. 14), while “Appellants’ claimed invention is directed
to a method by which a device on a computer network can be assigned an IP
address automatically, without the overhead of supporting the traditional
address assignment protocols, such as DHCP, within the devices
themselves” (App. Br. 16). Furthermore, Appellants contend that “the
Cheshire disclosure specifically pertains to self-configuration” (App. Br.
16), and that such teaching is “opposed to providing an IP address for
another device, separate and distinct from the computer that obtains the IP
address, which is connected via a network to the computer that obtains the
IP address” (App. Br. 17). Lastly, Appellants argue that “it would not be
obvious to combine the teachings of Buse and Cheshire” (App. Br. 18)
because “there is no advantage disclosed, taught, or suggested by either of
the references to modify Buse with Cheshire” (App. Br. 19).
However, the Examiner finds that “claim 1 is rejected as being
unpatentable over Buse in view of Cheshire” wherein Appellants “cannot
show nonobviousness where the rejections are based on combinations of
references” (Ans. 9-10), and that it would have been obvious to combine the
references because “each reference was directed to allocating an IP address
to a device with minimal user intervention” (Ans. 14). Thus, the issues we
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

9
address on appeal are whether the combination of Buse and Cheshire teaches
or would have suggested a computer for “incorporating said internet
protocol address in an address resolution protocol probe,” “sending said
address resolution protocol probe on said network,” and “if said internet
protocol address is not in use, then performing the step of assigning said
internet protocol address to said network adapter via said network” (claim
1), and whether it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
Buse and Cheshire.
We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324. Furthermore, our analysis
will not read limitations into the claims from the Specification. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
Appellants’ argument that Buse’s obtaining of an IP address via
DHCP or Automatic Private IP addressing differs from the claimed
invention because Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to assigning “an
IP address automatically, without the overhead of supporting the traditional
address assignment protocols, such as DHCP” (App. Br. 16) is not
commensurate with the language of the claimed invention. That is, claim 1
does not recite any step of assigning of an IP address “automatically”, which
only appears in the preamble of the claim, and further, claim 1 does not
preclude any use of assignment protocols such as DHCP. Appellants’
claims simply do not place any limitation on what the “internet protocol
address” is to be, to represent, or to mean, other than that the internet
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

10
protocol address is generated and incorporated in an address resolution
protocol probe, and then is assigned to the network adapter via the network
if it is not in use.
Similarly, Appellants’ argument that Cheshire differs from the
claimed invention because it pertains to “self-configuration” is also not
commensurate with the language of the claimed invention. That is, claim 1
does not preclude any “self configuration” feature.
We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding
that the combination of Buse and Cheshire teaches the claimed elements on
appeal as set forth in the Answer, starting on page 3. Buse teaches
communication between a proxy device such as a computer and a plurality
of devices via a network (FF 1), wherein an IP address is generated and sent
with an ARP or an ICMP echo request on the network to determine if there
is a conflict with an existing occupied address until a free address is found
(FF 3), and the free address is allocated to the device with an unconfigured
address (FF 2).
An artisan would have understood such proxy device of Buse to be a
computer which determines whether the IP address is in use and, if the IP
address is not in use, then assigning the IP address to the device (therefore
the network adapter of the device) via the network. The artisan would have
also understood such ARP or ICMP echo request of Buse to be a probe that
is incorporated with the IP address, wherein the IP address is generated and
sent with the request on the network to determine whether the IP address is
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

11
in use. Thus, we find Buse strongly suggests a computer for “incorporating
said internet protocol address in an address resolution protocol probe,”
“sending said address resolution protocol probe on said network,” and “if
said internet protocol address is not in use, then performing the step of
assigning said internet protocol address to said network adapter via said
network” (claim 1).
Furthermore, even if claim 1 requires that the IP address be allocated
“automatically” as the Appellants contend (App. Br. 16), contrary to
Appellants’ reading of Buse, we find that Buse is also directed to “a method
by which a device on a computer network can be assigned an IP address
automatically, without the overhead of supporting the traditional address
assignment protocols, such as DHCP” (Id.). That is, Buse discloses that if
there is no DHCP server on the network, the IP address is generated
automatically until a free address is found (FF 3). Thus, Buse does not
disclose assigning an IP address using DHCP, but rather, assigning an IP
address automatically generated when a DHCP server is not available.
As to Appellants’ argument that Cheshire pertains to “self-
configuration” (App. Br. 16), and that such teaching is “opposed to
providing an IP address for another device, separate and distinct from the
computer that obtains the IP address, which is connected via a network to
the computer that obtains the IP address” (App. Br. 17), even if claim 1
precludes such “self-configuration,” the Examiner has rejected the claims
based on the combination of Buse and Cheshire. Nonobviousness cannot be
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

12
shown by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097.
As discussed above, Buse teaches a computer for incorporating an IP
address in an ARP or ICMP echo request, sending the request on the
network, and if said IP address is not in use, then assigning the IP address to
the device with an unconfigured address via the network (FF 1-3). Further,
Cheshire discloses the use of an ARP probe to verify that an IP address is
not already in use, and then allocating the IP address to the device (FF 4).
We find an artisan would have understood Buse in view of Cheshire
would teach or at least suggest a computer for “incorporating said internet
protocol address in an address resolution protocol probe,” “sending said
address resolution protocol probe on said network,” and “if said internet
protocol address is not in use, then performing the step of assigning said
internet protocol address to said network adapter via said network” (claim
1). That is, even if claim 1 requires that the IP address be generated
“automatically” and “self-configuration” is precluded, as argued by
Appellants, we find the subject matter sought to be patented by Appellants
as a whole would have been obvious to the artisan as we consider the facts
of the case and the common sense of those skilled in the art. See Leapfrog,
485 F.3d at 1161.
Thus, as to Appellants’ further contention that that “it would not be
obvious to combine the teachings of Buse and Cheshire” (App. Br. 18), to
address the issue of whether it would have been obvious to combine the
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

13
teachings, we must determine whether or not the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1734.
Obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated
from the consideration of the facts of a case, and the common sense of those
skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been
obvious where others would not. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d at 1161. That is, the test for obviousness is rather what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; In re Young, 927
F.2d at 591.
As the Examiner finds, both Buse and Cheshire are “directed to
allocating an IP address to a device with minimal user intervention” (Ans.
14). We find that combining with the teachings of Cheshire of using an
ARP probe to determine if an IP address is not in use (FF 4) to the teachings
of Buse of sending an ARP request on the network to determine if an IP
address is not in use to assign the IP address to the device via the network
(FF 1-3) would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense"
(KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742). Appellants have presented no evidence that
combining the teachings of sending an ARP probe on the network to assign
an IP address to a device via the network if the IP address is not in use "was
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

14
uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art," nor
have Appellants presented evidence that this "represented an unobvious step
over the prior art." See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162.
It is our view that a person of ordinary skill would have been able to
fit the teachings of Buse and Cheshire together like pieces of a puzzle since
the “person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. The combined teachings of the
references represent merely a combination of familiar elements according to
known methods and do no more than yield predictable results. See id at
1739. That is, the invention is not more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions. See id. at 1740. Thus, we
conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 over the teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire. As to
claims 9 and 10 depending from claim 1, Appellants do not provide separate
arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we conclude that
the Appellants also have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 9 and 10 over the teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire.
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

15
Claims 17 and 25
As to claim 17, Appellants add the argument that “Buse simply does
not disclose, teach, or suggest an imaging device” although Appellants admit
that “Cheshire offhandedly mentions ‘printers’” (App. Br. 21). Since the
Examiner has rejected the claims based on the combination of Buse and
Cheshire, nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking Buse.
As Appellants admit, Cheshire discloses printers, which are imaging
devices. In particular, Cheshire discloses IP based “plug and play” devices
such as “any printer on the LAN” (FF 5). We find an artisan would have
understood the printer of Cheshire to be an imaging device coupled to the
network. Further, as discussed above, Buse discloses a network device
including a network adapter coupled to the network (FF 1). Thus, an artisan
would have understood Buse in view of Cheshire would teach or at least
suggest “communicatively coupling said imaging device to said network”
(claim 17). That is, we find the subject matter sought to be patented by
Appellants as a whole would have been obvious to the artisan as we consider
the facts of the case and the common sense of those skilled in the art.
Thus, we conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 over the teachings of Buse in view of
Cheshire. As to claim 25 depending from claim 17, Appellants do not
provide separate arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 17. Thus,
we conclude that the Appellants also have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 25 over the teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire.
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

16
Claims 2-6 and 18-22
As to claims 2-6, Appellants add the argument that “Reed does not
overcome the deficiency of Buse in view of Cheshire” because, “[l]ike
Cheshire, Reed discloses self-configuration” (App. Br. 25), and that “there is
nothing disclosed, taught, or suggested in either of the Buse or Cheshire or
Reed references that would suggest the desirability of the asserted
combination” (App. Br. 27).
Since the Examiner has rejected the claims based on the combination
of Buse, Cheshire, and Reed, nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking
the references individually. We agree with the Examiner that the subject
matter sought to be patented by Appellants as a whole would have been
obvious to the artisan as we consider the facts of the case and the common
sense of those skilled in the art.
To address the issue of whether it would have been obvious to
combine the teachings, we determine the common sense of those skilled in
the art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d at 1161.
We determine what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at
425; In re Young, 927 F.2d at 591.
As the Examiner finds, Reed teaches “generating an internet protocol
address” (Ans. 6). As discussed above, as the Examiner finds, both Buse
and Cheshire are directed to allocating an IP address (Ans. 14). We find that
combining the teachings of Reed of generating an IP address to the teachings
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

17
of Buse and Cheshire would require no more than "ordinary skill and
common sense" (KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742). Appellants have presented no
evidence that combining the teachings "was uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art," nor have Appellants presented evidence
that this "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog,
485 F.3d at 1162. The combined teachings of the references represent
merely a combination of familiar elements according to known methods and
do no more than yield predictable results. See id at 1739. That is, the
invention is not more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions. See id. at 1740.
Thus, we conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-6 over the teachings of Buse in view of
Cheshire and Reed. As to claims 18-22, Appellants do not provide separate
arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 2-6. Thus, we conclude
that the Appellants also have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 18-22 over the teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire and Reed.
Claim 7
As to claim 7, Appellants add the argument that “Mellquist does not
make up for the deficiency of Buse and Cheshire” because, the network
device 33 of Mellquist “configures itself” (App. Br. 32), that Mellquist does
not disclose “determining if the network adapter has a valid internet protocol
address” (App. Br. 34), and that “there is nothing disclosed, taught, or
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

18
suggested in either of the Buse or Cheshire or Mellquist references that
would suggest the desirability of the asserted combination (App. Br. 36).
Since the Examiner has rejected the claims based on the combination
of Buse, Cheshire, and Reed, nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking
the references individually. As the Examiner finds, Buse discloses such
teachings and such teachings are consistent with Appellants’ teaching that
“an IP address is considered valid if it is an appropriate address for the
subnet to which the computer is connected” (Ans. 18). We agree with the
Examiner that the subject matter sought to be patented by Appellants as a
whole would have been obvious to the artisan as we consider the facts of the
case and the common sense of those skilled in the art.
To address the issue of whether it would have been obvious to
combine the teachings, again, we determine the common sense of those
skilled in the art.
As the Examiner finds, Mellquist teaches “determining if said network
adapter has a ‘valid’ internet protocol address” (Ans. 7). As discussed
above, as the Examiner finds both Buse and Cheshire are directed to
allocating an IP address (Ans. 14). We find that combining the teachings of
Mellquist of determining a valid IP address to the teachings of Buse and
Cheshire would require no more than ordinary skill and common sense and
Appellants have presented no evidence that combining the teachings was
uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it
is our view that Appellants’ claim 7 is merely a combination of familiar
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

19
elements that would have been combinable according to known methods to
yield predictable results.
Thus, we conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 over the teachings of Buse in view of
Cheshire and Mellquist.
Claims 11-16
As to claim 11, Appellants add that “Buse in view of Cheshire, and in
further view of Mellquist does not disclose, teach, or suggest determining if
the low-cost network adapter has a valid internet protocol address” (App. Br.
38). However, the Examiner finds that Buse in view of Cheshire in further
view of Mellquist discloses such teachings (Ans. 20-21). Appellants provide
no argument to dispute that the Examiner has correctly shown where all the
claimed elements appear in the prior art.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 over the teachings of Buse in view of
Cheshire and Mellquist. As to claims 12-16, Appellants do not provide
separate arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 11 from which
claims 12-16 depend. Thus, we conclude that the Appellants also have not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12-16 over the teachings
of Buse in view of Cheshire and Reed.
Claim 23
As to claim 23, Appellants add that “Buse in view of Cheshire, and in
further view of Mellquist do not disclose, teach, or suggest “wherein the
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

20
computer executes preliminary instructions to determine if the network
adapter has a valid internet protocol address” (App. Br. 39-40). However,
the Examiner finds that Buse in view of Cheshire in further view of
Mellquist discloses such teachings (Ans. 21-23). Appellants provide no
argument to dispute that the Examiner has correctly shown where all the
claimed elements appear in the prior art.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23 over the teachings of Buse in view of
Cheshire and Mellquist.
Claims 8 and 24
As to claim 8, Appellants add that “Troll does not disclose, teach, or
suggest determining whether the network allows the computer to assign an
internet protocol address to the network adapter” (App. Br. 42). However,
the Examiner finds that the claimed “‘a network that allows a computer to
assign an internet protocol address to a network adapter’, simply means
determining that DHCP server(s) are available on the network from which
remote automatic IP addresses can be obtained for providing to a devices’
network adapter” (Ans. 24).
We find the evidence supports the Examiner’s position. Since the
Examiner has rejected the claims based on the combination of Buse,
Cheshire, Mellquist, and Troll, nonobviousness cannot be shown by
attacking Troll individually. As the Examiner finds, Cheshire discloses such
teachings “by determining that DHCP server(s) are available on the network
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

21
from which remote automatic IP address can be obtained” (Ans. 25). We
find that an artisan would have understood a network containing a DHCP
server that could assign an IP address to a device to be a network that allows
the server to assign an IP to the device (i.e., to the network adapter).
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 over the teachings of Buse in view of
Cheshire, Mellquist, and Troll. As to claim 24, Appellants do not provide
separate arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 8. Thus, we
conclude that the Appellants also have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 24 over the teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire and Reed.

VI. CONCLUSION OF LAW
(1) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that claims 1, 9, 10, 17, and 25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire.
(2) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that claims 2-6 and 18-22 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire and Reed.
(3) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that claims 7, 11-16, and 23 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire and Mellquist.
Appeal 2008-2672
Application 09/957,014

22
(4) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that claims 8 and 24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
teachings of Buse in view of Cheshire and Mellquist and Troll.
Claims 1-25 are not patentable.

VII. DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

rwk

LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPARTMENT
740 WEST NEW CIRCLE ROAD
BLDG. 082-1
LEXINGTON KY 40550-0999