12341835 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016)

Ex Parte Webb-Johnson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 8, 2016

12341835 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016)

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. 12/341,835 12/22/2008 Mark Crispin Webb-Johnson 690150.402C1 1606 500 7590 06/08/2016 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC 701 FIFTH AVE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER GOLDBERG, ANDREW C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2498 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/08/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARK CRISPIN WEBB-JOHNSON ___________ Appeal 2014-002509 Application 12/341,835 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., KEVIN C. TROCK, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5–13, 15– 23, and 25–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Appeal 2014-002509 Application 12/341,835 2 Introduction The invention is directed to: A system for classifying an Internet protocol (IP) address, including: a data store for storing client profile data associated with a client, the client profile data including an Internet protocol address of a server; and a processor for receiving a resolved Internet protocol address from the client, and determining whether the resolved Internet protocol address corresponds to a second server associated with the first server. Abstract. Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A system for classifying an Internet protocol (IP) address, including: a data store storing client profile data associated with a client, said client profile data including a first IP address of a first server; and a processor to receive a resolved IP address from the client, and use said data store to determine whether the resolved IP address corresponds to a second server associated with the first server, wherein the data store includes configuration data representing IP addresses corresponding to servers in a server farm, and said processor determines that the first and second servers are associated and part of said server farm when the resolved IP address corresponds to one of the IP addresses of the configuration data, wherein the processor performs a reverse domain name system lookup process using the resolved IP address and the IP address of the first server to obtain respective corresponding first and second server names, and said first and second server names are compared to determine whether the servers are associated. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1, 3, 5–13, 15–23 and 25–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Appeal 2014-002509 Application 12/341,835 3 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Howell (United States Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0026177 A1; published February 2, 2006), Kriens (United States Patent Application Publication Number 2001/0006523 A1; published July 5, 2001) and Rizzuto (United States Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0056418 A1; published March 16, 2006). Final Rejection 2–9. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 15, 2013), the Reply Brief (December 20, 2013), the Answer (mailed October 22, 2013) and the Final Rejection (mailed September 13, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, except where noted. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1: Kriens nowhere suggests using a resolved IP address and an IP address to obtain respective server names. Instead, Kriens receives a server name from a user and compares a suffix of that server name to a suffix of a stored server name. If there is a match, Kriens creates a tunnel for the server name received from the user and assigns a temporary random IP number to the tunnel. Appeal 2014-002509 Application 12/341,835 4 Appeal Brief 17. The Examiner finds: The user names the second computer (destination). In order to proceed, the proxy must determine if the suffix of the request (associated with an IP address) matches a suffix of the second domain (read: second server). If so, set up the route, if not discard. Mapping may be based on a list of hosts). The invention of Kriens therefore takes the initial request name and a list of known names and compares the suffix. Final Rejection (citing Kriens paragraph 38). Kriens also discloses, “In a preferred method the intermediate system 230 will try to match a domain name suffix of the second domain 220 to a domain name suffix of the DNS request for a match to the tunnel 231 of the example.” Kriens, paragraph 38. Kriens’ employment of a DNS request relies upon resolved IP addresses to identify servers as shown in Figure 2 in the same manner as Appellant’s invention recited in claim 1.1 Therefore we agree with the Examiner’s findings and do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Appellant also argues that Rizzuto: [P]erforms a reverse DNS lookup process on a single IP address to obtain a single domain name that is then associated with other consecutive IP addresses. Given that all of the consecutive IP addresses are associated with the same domain name, there is no reason in Rizzuto’s system to perform a reverse DNS lookup process on any of the consecutive IP addresses other than the first IP address. Appeal Brief 17. 1 See Specification, page 2; (“This server name is resolved by the Domain Name Service (DNS) into one of the IP addresses in the server farm.” (emphasis added)). Appeal 2014-002509 Application 12/341,835 5 Claim 1 recites a system having a data store and a processor with the processor performing a reverse domain name system lookup. We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive because although Rizzuto discloses identifying a group of IP consecutive addresses using reverse DNS, we agree with the Examiner that it would be well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Howell to identify resolved IP addresses employing reverse DNS.2 See Rizzuto [0017]. Further, Rizzuto’s employment of reverse DNS addresses the deficiencies for the Howell/Kriens. Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as, the obviousness rejection of claims 3, 5–13, 15–23, and 25–34 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 20. DECISION The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 5–13, 15–23, and 25–34 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2009). AFFIRMED 2 “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is 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) (internal citations omitted).