Ex Parte Parthasarathy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 22, 2016

13155271 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/155,271 06/07/2011 Mohan Parthasarathy 63975 7590 11/22/2016 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC 1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 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. APL-Pl0448US1 2660 EXAMINER LIN, SHEW FEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 11/22/2016 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 MOHAN PARTHASARATHY and JOSHUA V. GRAESSLEY Appeal2015-004642 Application 13/155,271 Technology Center 2100 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final decisions rejecting claims 1-23, which are all the claims pending in the present application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify Apple, Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2015-004642 Application 13/155,271 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present application relates to caching responses for scoped and non-scoped domain name system (DNS) queries. Spec. 1: 19--20. Claims 1 and 8 are illustrative of the claimed invention and are reproduced below. 1. A method for domain name resolution in an electronic device with a plurality of network interfaces, compnsmg: in the electronic device, receiving a scoped request from an application to determine an IP address for a domain name, wherein the scoped request is a function call that comprises an argument specifying that a DNS query generated from the scoped request is to transmitted only on network interfaces specified in the scoped request, and wherein a non-scoped request is a function call that comprises an argument specifying that a DNS query generated from the non- scoped request can be transmitted on any of the network interfaces; generating a DNS query from the scoped request and transmitting the DNS query only on the network interfaces specified in the scoped request; and upon receiving a response to the DNS query, forwarding the response to the application; and storing a record of the response in a scoped portion of a DNS resolution cache that is used only for storing responses to scoped requests, wherein a non-scoped portion of the DNS resolution cache is used only for storing responses to non-scoped requests. 2 Appeal2015-004642 Application 13/155,271 8. An apparatus, comprising: a DNS resolution cache, wherein the DNS resolution cache comprises a memory with memory circuits for caching records of responses to DNS queries; a scoped portion in the DNS resolution cache, wherein the scoped portion is a first portion of memory circuits used for caching records of responses to scoped DNS queries; and a non-scoped portion in the DNS resolution cache, wherein the non-scoped portion is a second portion of memory circuits used for caching records of responses to non-scoped DNS queries, wherein the first portion of the memory circuits and the second portion of the memory circuits are different portions of the memory circuits. The Rejections Claims 8 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) over Rao (US 2006/0242227 Al; Oct. 26, 2006). Claims 1-7 and 15-23 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Shribman (US 2012/0124239 Al; May 17, 2012), van Megen (US 2007/0211690 Al; Sept. 13, 2007), and Mukker (US 2005/0188156 Al; Aug. 25, 2005). Claims 9-11 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Rao and Atkisson (US 2012/0221774 Al; Aug. 30, 2012). ANALYSIS Anticipation Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 8 because: "Rao is limited to caching information about resolved relay nodes gathered 3 Appeal2015-004642 Application 13/155,271 using PNRP resolution queries in separate caches based on the communication protocol that the relay node. Rao does not describe or suggest scoped and non-scoped DNS queries and/or caching such DNS queries." Br. 11. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because it is not responsive to the Examiner's findings. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Rao describes a DNS query specifying SSL protocol (i.e., a "scoped DNS query") and a "DNS query other than SSL, such as UDP type query" (i.e., a "non-scoped DNS query"). Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The DNS queries are resolved by promoter 210, which includes a domain name service (DNS) front end 300 and a server-less resolution protocol (e.g., PNRP) back end 310 for peer-to-peer based communications. Rao, i-f 30. As the Examiner correctly finds, Roa describes, "promoter 210 may function as a name server for standard domain name service and may maintain a database of cached results. As such, the DNS interface 320 may receive standard DNS requests and return results that are cached in its database." Ans. 3 (citing Rao, i-f 51) (emphasis omitted). Finally, contrary to Appellants' argument, claim 8 recites caching responses to scoped and non-scoped DNS queries, not caching the queries themselves. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 as anticipated by Rao. Appellants advance no further arguments regarding dependent claims 12-14. Br. 11. Accordingly, we further sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 12-14 as anticipated by Rao. 4 Appeal2015-004642 Application 13/155,271 Obviousness of Claims 1-7 and 15-23 Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because neither van Megan nor Shribman addresses "any form of scope relating to DNS queries and certainly does not describe a scoped DNS query." Br. 12- 13 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellants' conclusory argument. The Examiner details at length findings in the applied references and a motivation to combine the teachings of the references. Appellants fail to address substantively these findings and motivation. A mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements are not found in the prior art is insufficient to show error. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(iv)(2012); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as rendered obvious. Appellants advance no further arguments regarding claims 2-7 and 15-23. See Br. 12-14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7 and 15-23 as rendered obvious. Obviousness of Claims 9-11 Appellants fail to address claims 9-11. See Br. 10-14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-11 as rendered obvious. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5