Ex Parte YAO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2014

11867948 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/867,948 10/05/2007 Xin YAO 4202-09000 9998
97698 7590 04/23/2014
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
EXAMINER
ANWARI, MACEEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2014 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 XIN YAO and LIEDAN JU
____________

Appeal 2011-005675
Application 11/867,948
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

Appeal 2011-005675
Application 11/867,948

2
In reaching the decision, we have considered only the arguments that
Appellants actually raised. Arguments that Appellants did not make are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to communication technologies. See
generally Spec., 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for traversing a Network Address Translation (NAT) or
Firewall (FW) device, comprising:
setting up a User Datagram Protocol (UDP) tunnel between a first
device and a second device, wherein the first device and the second device
are on the two sides of an NAT or FW device;
wherein setting up the UDP tunnel between the first device and the
second device comprises:
inserting a UDP tunnel header (UTH) into a first packet sent
from the first device;
allocating a new source Internet Protocol (IP) address to the
first packet; and
saving UDP tunnel information; and
transmitting, via the UDP tunnel according to the UDP tunnel
information, a second packet
originated from one of the two devices, to the other of the two devices
through the NAT or FW device.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kivinen (WO 00/78008 A1) and Blanchet (U.S. 7,305,481
B2).
Appeal 2011-005675
Application 11/867,948

3
Claims 2-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kivinen, Blanchet, and Verma (U.S. 6, 654,792 B1).

ISSUES
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding Kivinen
and Blanchet collectively teach
“wherein setting up the UDP tunnel between the first device and the
second device comprises:
inserting a UDP tunnel header (UTH) into a first packet sent
from the first device;
allocating a new source Internet Protocol (IP) address to the
first packet; and
saving UDP tunnel information”
as recited in claim 1?1

ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
Appellants assert contrary to the claim requirements, each of Kivinen and
Blanchet teaches how to use, but not how to set up, a UDP tunnel. See App.
Br. 7-13.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 7-13), and agree
with the Examiner’s conclusions. Contrary to Appellants’ assertion, the
Examiner correctly finds Kivinen teaches setting up a UDP tunnel. See Ans.

1Issues for independent claims 12 and 17 are discussed in the Analysis
section.
Appeal 2011-005675
Application 11/867,948

4
14-15; Kivinen p. 8 (“tunneling packets inside a certain carefully selected
protocol, typically UDP, to make them traverse NATs”; “[T]unneling
involves adding a new IP header in front of the original packet, setting the
protocol field in the new header appropriately, and sending the packet to the
desired destination (endpoint of the tunnel). Tunneling may also be
implemented by modifying the original packet header fields or replacing
them with a different header, as long as a sufficient amount of information
about the original packet is saved in the process so that it will be possible to
reconstruct the packet at the end of the tunnel into a form sufficiently similar
to the original packet entering the tunnel.”).
Although Kivinen does not repeat the recited claim limitation
verbatim, one skilled in the art would understand Kivinen’s disclosure
teaches setting up a UDP tunnel. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (whether a reference teaches a claim limitation “is not an
‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”).
Further, the Examiner finds the claimed inserting, allocating and
saving elements are taught or obvious in light of Kivinen’s teachings. See
Ans. 15. For example, the Examiner finds Kivinen teaches inserting a UDP
tunnel header (UTH) into a first packet (mapped to Kivinen’s “tunneling
involves adding a new IP header in front of the original packet”) sent from
the first device. See Ans. 4; 14-15; Kivinen p. 8. Because Appellants do not
provide any analysis countering the Examiner’s findings and reasoning that
the claimed inserting, allocating and saving elements are taught or obvious
in light of Kivinen’s teachings, such findings, and reasoning are undisputed.
See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is
not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater
Appeal 2011-005675
Application 11/867,948

5
detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over
the prior art.”).
Accordingly, because Appellants fail to provide adequate analysis to
persuade us of error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

Independent Claims 12 and 17
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 12
and 17.
Appellants contend each of Kivinen and Blanchet fails to teach UTC
and UTS as recited in claims 12 and 17, but do not provide any analysis.
See App. Br. 10, 13.
Appellants’ unsupported assertion is unpersuasive. Further, the
Examiner finds each of Kivinen and Blanchet inherently teaches a UTC and
UTS. See Ans. 15-16. Because Appellants do not provide any analysis
countering the Examiner’s findings and reasoning, the Examiner’s findings
are undisputed. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391 (“It is not the
function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail
than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the
prior art.”).
Accordingly, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 17.

Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 6, Appellants contend because Kivinen
and Blanchet fail to teach setting up the UDP channel, they cannot teach the
claimed elements in those dependent claims. Appellants argue because
Appeal 2011-005675
Application 11/867,948

6
Verma does not teach UTC or UTS, it cannot teach the claimed elements in
those dependent claims. See App. Br. 14-19.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Kivinen teaches setting up
the UDP channel. Further, because the Examiner finds Kivinen and
Blanchet teach UTC and UTS, Verma does not need to teach those claim
elements. We note Appellants do not provide analysis countering the
Examiner’s findings that the cited references collectively teach claims 2, 3,
and 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and
6, and remaining dependent claims that Appellants do not separately argue,
or Appellants argue should be allowed for the same or similar reason as
independent claim 1, 12, and 17.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-17 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw