Ex Parte Madan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

14446819 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/446,819 07/30/2014 Amit Madan
118856 7590 05/31/2018
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
84270192 3757
EXAMINER
PATEL, HITESHKUMARR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 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):
iplegal@arubanetworks.com
patents@arubanetworks.com
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT MADAN, SANDEEP UNNIMADHA VAN,
and JAGACHITTES V ADIVELU
Appeal2017-008695
Application 14/446,819 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
According to the Specification, "[t]o ensure a strong WiFi®
connection, more than one network device is needed to supply the wireless
signal. As users move around, or roam, they may need to switch to a
different network device." Spec. i-f 1. The application relates to "continued
deep packet inspection (DPI) after roaming." Id. i-f 12.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Aruba Networks, Inc.,
"a wholly-owned subsidiary" of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008695
Application 14/446,819
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium compnsmg
instructions which, when executed by one or more devices,
causes performance of operations comprising:
forwarding, by a first network device, a first set of
messages corresponding to a particular connection to a server,
the first set of messages being forwarded between a client device
and the server via the first network device;
receiving, by the first network device, a copy of a second
set of messages corresponding to the particular connection that
are transmitted between the client device and the server via a
second network device without being transmitted through the
first network device; and
analyzing, by the first network device, both the first set of
messages and the second set of messages to obtain a
classification associated with the particular connection to the
server.
Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
unpatentable subject matter. Final Act. 3---6.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination ofNam et al. (US 2009/0116448 Al; May 7, 2009), Pastro
(US 2015/0036690 Al; Feb. 5, 2015), and Yadav et al. (US 2012/0216239
Al; Aug. 23, 2012). Final Act. 6-29.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in concluding claim 1 sought to claim
unpatentable subject matter under § 101?
2
Appeal2017-008695
Application 14/446,819
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Nam and
Pastro teaches or suggests "receiving, by the first network device, a copy of
a second set of messages corresponding to the particular connection that are
transmitted between the client device and the server via a second network
device without being transmitted through the first network device," as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Patentable Subject Matter(§ 101)
To determine patentable subject matter, the Supreme Court has set
forth a two part test. "First, we determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts" of "laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134
S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). In the second step, we "consider the elements of
each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine
whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a
patent-eligible application." Id. (quotations omitted). The Supreme Court
has "described step two of this analysis as a search for an 'inventive
concept'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the ineligible concept itself." Id. (quotation omitted).
Here, the Examiner concludes "the claim is drawn to the abstract idea
of 1) collecting [a] set of messages [and] 2) using the set of messages for
classifying into categories." Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue "collecting messages and classifying the messages
into categories is not an abstract idea" because the Specification provides
examples in which "classification can include an indication that 'the network
3
Appeal2017-008695
Application 14/446,819
device should prevent the client device from sending attachments in a non-
approved email client, although emails without attachments are allowed"'
and "classification can include an indication that 'the messages are for a
social network chat application, the packets relating to chatting may be
rejected, thereby preventing the client device from using the chat
application, even though the client may still be allowed to visit/use other
aspects of the social network."' App. Br. 7 (quoting Spec. i-f 34). Based on
these same features, Appellants contend "the system changing whether to
send and/or receive messages or reject/accept packets transforms the steps
into significantly more than generic or abstract steps." Id.
The Federal Circuit, however, has held that "it is improper to confine
the claims to the embodiments found in the specification." In re Trans
Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quotation
omitted). Appellants have not shown how the claims as presently written are
limited to the specific examples it identifies. For example, independent
claims 1, 9, and 18 are not limited to classifications involving email
attachments or social network chat applications. The cited paragraph of the
Specification even calls this an "example." Spec. i-f 34. Therefore,
Appellants' examples do not render the claims less abstract or provide
significantly more. See Ans. 3. Moreover, consistent with the Examiner's
conclusion, the Federal Circuit has held that "the realm of abstract ideas
includes collecting information, including when limited to particular
content" as well as "analyzing information." Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric
Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotations omitted).
Appellants further contend "the steps recited in the independent
claims are not 'otherwise conventional steps."' Reply Br. 2. We agree with
4
Appeal2017-008695
Application 14/446,819
the Examiner, however, that "[t]he generically recited computer elements
such as 'server', and 'first and second network device' do not add a
meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in
any computer implementation." Ans. 5; see also id. at 4, 6-7. A network
device, such as an access point or switch, forwarding messages between a
client and a server is merely performing the "well-known functions" of a
generic network device. See Ans. 7. The Examiner also is correct (Ans. 6)
that the Specification explains the claimed hardware components can be
generic. E.g., Spec. i-fi-f 16 ("For example, the client device (130) may be a
laptop computer, smart phone, personal digital assistant, tablet computer, or
other mobile device."), 15 ("server (105) is a server, rack, computer, laptop,
smart phone, tablet computer, or other suitable device that sends and/or
receives data to/from client device (130)"), 17, 18 ("the network device may
be the access point, ... a switch (e.g., mobility access switch), or other such
device"), 40. Similarly, the Federal Circuit has held that "to utilize an
intermediary computer in forwarding information .... is perfectly
conventional." Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d
1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Likewise, the Federal Circuit has held that
"sending information, in whole or in part, gathered from one source to
different destinations .... effects no meaningful transformation because it
merely makes the originally-gathered information accessible to different
destinations without changing the content or its classification." Cyberfone
Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App'x 988, 993 (Fed. Cir.
2014); see also Final Act. 4 (citing Cyberfone).
"Though lengthy and numerous, the claims do not go beyond
requiring the collection [and] analysis ... of available information in a
5
Appeal2017-008695
Application 14/446,819
particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting
them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an
advance over conventional computer and network technology." Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection under § 101 of independent
claims 1, 9, and 18, and their dependent claims 2-8, 10-17, 19, and 20,
which Appellants do not argue separately. See App. Br. 6-7; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Obviousness (§ 103)
Claim 1 recites "receiving, by the first network device, a copy of a
second set of messages corresponding to the particular connection that are
transmitted between the client device and the server via a second network
device without being transmitted through the first network device."
The Examiner finds Nam's access point A 110 teaches the claimed
"first network device"; Nam's access point B 120 teaches the claimed
"second network device"; and Nam's user terminal 200 teaches the claimed
"client device." See Final Act. 6-7. In Nam, access points 100 collectively
refer to all three individual access points 100, 110, and 120. See Nam i-f 40,
Fig. 1. Nam discloses:
[T]he access point 100 receives information on the access points
100 accessible by the user terminal 200 from the user terminal
200 S402. In the case of a wireless network system as
constructed in FIG. 1, the access points 100 accessible by the
user terminal 200 are access point A 110 and access point B 120.
Since the user terminal 200 has selected and accessed the access
point A 110, information on the access point B 120 is transmitted
to the access point A 110.
6
Appeal2017-008695
Application 14/446,819
Nam i-f 72 (emphasis added). Citing this, the Examiner finds Nam teaches
"state information i.e. [a] copy of messages, is transmitted to access point
A." An 10 s. .
Appellants argue that, in Nam, the information forwarded to the first
access point "is never transmitted between the client device and the server."
App. Br. 8. We agree with Appellants. Although Nam teaches receiving
"information on the access points 100 accessible by the user terminal 200"
(Nam i-f 72), the Examiner has not shown sufficiently whether such
information is ever sent between the client device and the server.
The Examiner further relies on Pastro for disclosing "receiving by
second gateway 9 (first network device) a copy of messages i.e. SIP INFO
message communication with client to server via first gateway 3 (second
network device) without being transmitted through second gateway 9." Ans.
11 (citing Pastro i-fi-147--48, Fig. 6). We agree with Appellants, however, that
"the Pastro message (SIP[] INFO) includes connection information related to
devices as possible candidates for connection" and "does not include
messages associated with a connection between a client device and a
server." App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner fails to adequately
explain how Pastro's SIP INFO message meets the claim language.
Independent claim 9 recites "receiving, by the first network device, a
second classification information for a second set of messages
corresponding to the particular connection that are transmitted between the
client device and the server via a second network device without being
transmitted through the first network device." The Examiner finds "the first
access point 110 (first network device) receives a copy of re-association
message (copy of second set of messages i.e. header information (second
7
Appeal2017-008695
Application 14/446,819
classification information)[)] where user terminal 200 communicate with
server 10, where second message are communicating via AP 120." Final
Act. 15 (some emphasis omitted). Similar to claim 1, however, the
Examiner has not shown sufficiently that Nam's "header information" is for
"a second set of messages corresponding to the particular connection that are
transmitted between the client device and the server," as required by claim 9.
In independent claim 18, a first network device forwards a first set of
messages to a server, a second network device forwards a second set of
messages to the server, and a third network device receives "a copy of the
first set of messages from the first network device and a copy of the second
set of messages from the second network device." But as discussed above
for claim 1, the Examiner has not shown sufficiently that the copy of the
messages is "corresponding to the particular connection to the server" or
"forwarded between the client device and the server." See Final Act. 24--27.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection under§ 103 of
independent claims 1, 9, and 18, and their dependent claims 2-8, 10-17, 19,
and 20.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the decision rejecting claims 1-20
under§ 101, but we reverse the decision rejecting claims 1-20 under§ 103.
Because we affirm at least one rejection for every appealed claim, we
designate this Decision an affirmance.
No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8