Ex Parte Elias et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 26, 2013

11549287 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2013)

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. 11/549,287 10/13/2006 MARK A. ELIAS 7785-143_2006-636 6728 92384 7590 07/29/2013 AT&T Legal Department - G&G Attention: Patent Docketing Room 2A-207 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 EXAMINER HSU, ALPUS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2013 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 A. ELIAS, SHERRY SOJA-MOLLOY, and STEVEN T. KENNEDY ___________ Appeal 2011-003830 Application 11/549,287 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, JUSTIN BUSCH, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-003830 Application 11/549,287 2 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-21, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to assigning Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs). An Access Point (AP) having a switching element assigns a computing device to a VLAN according to a Media Access Control (MAC) address of the computing device. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with minor formatting and disputed limitation in italics: 1. An Access Point (AP), comprising[:] a switching element that assigns computing devices to Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs) according to Media Access Control (MAC) addresses of the computing devices, wherein a plurality of different VLAN IDs are for the computing devices, wherein the assignment of the plurality of different VLAN IDs is directly in response to a request for a VLAN from the computing devices, and wherein each of the computing devices is an end user device. Claims 1, 16, 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Nagai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0274744 A1; Dec. 7, 2006) and Polland (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0031260 A1; Feb. 7, 2008). Claims 2-15 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Nagai, Polland, and Saunderson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0248229 A1; Nov. 2, 2006). Appeal 2011-003830 Application 11/549,287 3 ANALYSIS We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 5-151) that the combination of Nagai and Polland would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “wherein the assignment of the plurality of different VLAN IDs is directly in response to a request for a VLAN from the computing devices.” The Examiner found that the assignment of a unique VLAN ID to each user terminal of Nagai corresponds to the limitation a “plurality of different VLAN IDs.” (Ans. 5, 18-19; Nagai, ¶ [0014].) The Examiner acknowledged that Nagai does not disclose the limitation “wherein the assignment of the plurality of different VLAN IDs is directly in response to a request for a VLAN from the computing devices” (Ans. 5) and thus, relied upon Polland for teaching the assignment of a VLAN ID based on a request from an external port (Ans. 5; Polland, ¶ [0081]). The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious . . . to modify the teachings of Nagai to assign a VLAN ID to a user device in direct response to a request, as suggested by Polland” to “benefit the system by directly assigning VLANs between user devices and the devices with which they are to communicate.” (Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner. Nagai relates to “user terminals, Layer 2 switches (L2SWs), and Layer 2 gateways (L2GWs) to which VLAN IDs can be dynamically 1 Appellants’ Reply Brief was filed on December 13, 2010, more than two months after the mailing of the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 20, 2010. Accordingly, Appellants’ Reply Brief was not considered because it was untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41 (“Appellant may file a reply brief to an examiner’s answer within two months from the date of the examiner’s answer . . . . Extensions of time under § 1.136 (a) of this title for patent applications are not applicable to the time period set forth in this section.”). Appeal 2011-003830 Application 11/549,287 4 assigned in network systems.” (¶ [0002].) Nagai explains that “a VLAN ID can be automatically assigned to each user terminal . . . uniquely just by specifying a common VLAN ID in the network to a user terminal” (¶ [0014]; see also Abstract), such that the VLAN ID is assigned to the user terminal from a VLAN ID management server (Abstract). Thus, Nagai teaches the limitation a “plurality of different VLAN IDs.” Polland relates to program instructions for a “processor to switch input data packets for ingress to at least one internal-device port of an internal device from all external ports.” (Abstract.) Polland explains that “[t]he internal processor 210 executing software 230 assigns the virtual local area network identifier to the port VLAN tag 187 based on the requested external port 300, 301 or 302 (block 906).” (¶ [0081].) Thus, Polland teaches the limitation “assignment . . . is directly in response to a request for a VLAN from the computing devices.” The combination of Nagai and Polland is nothing more than incorporating the known method of Polland for assigning a VLAN based on a request from an external port with the known user terminals of Nagai, in which VLAN IDs can be dynamically assigned in network systems, to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Alternatively, combining Nagai and Polland is no more than the simple substitution of the known method of Polland for assigning a VLAN based on a request from an external port for the known method of Nagai for assigning a VLAN ID to the user terminal from a VLAN ID management server, to yield predictable results. Id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5) that modifying Nagai to incorporate the method of Polland for Appeal 2011-003830 Application 11/549,287 5 assigning a VLAN based on a request from an external port would have been obvious. Appellants argue that: Nagai utilizes a VLAN ID other than the common default VLAN ID only after the Nagai performs its initialization steps for a VLAN ID assignment request, and the use of the VLAN ID other than the default VLAN ID in Nagai is not directly in response to a request for a VLAN from the computing devices, as in claim 1. (Br. 7.) However, the Examiner cited Polland, rather than Nagai for teaching the limitation “wherein the assignment of the plurality of different VLAN IDs is directly in response to a request for a VLAN from the computing devices.” (Ans. 5.) Appellants further argue that: One of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged from replacing the use of the common VLAN ID during initialization of the devices in Nagai with a system that assigns a plurality of different VLAN IDs for the computing devices directly in response to a request for a VLAN from the computing devices since Nagai describes its desire to “eliminat[e] the need for specifying a VLAN ID to each user terminal” and relies heavily upon the common default VLAN ID for its communication. (Br. 8-9.) Even if Appellants are correct that Nagai “relies heavily upon the common default VLAN ID for its communication” (Br. 8), Nagai expressly states that “a VLAN ID can be automatically assigned to each user terminal . . . uniquely” (¶ [0014]), such that the automatic assignment is performed by the VLAN ID management server (Abstract). Accordingly, Appellants have provided an insufficient explanation as why “eliminating the need for specifying a VLAN ID to each user terminal” constitutes a “teaching away” when the Examiner’s modification of Nagai is assigning a VLAN ID based Appeal 2011-003830 Application 11/549,287 6 on a requested external port, as taught by Polland, rather than having the VLAN ID management server assign the VLAN ID. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Nagai and Polland would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “wherein the assignment of the plurality of different VLAN IDs is directly in response to a request for a VLAN from the computing devices.” Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent claims 11, 16, and 21 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 11, 16, and 21, as well as dependent claim 17, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent claims 2-15 and 18-20 separately (Br. 15-16), the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely reiterate that “[a]s described above, Nagai teaches away from these features [of claim 1].” (Br. 15.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 16, from which claims 2-15 and 18-20 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection. Appeal 2011-003830 Application 11/549,287 7 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 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 msc