Ex Parte Raghunath et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 7, 201411622119 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/622,119 01/11/2007 MANDAYAM THONDANUR RAGHUNATH YOR920060266US1 (163-137) 2400 49267 7590 08/07/2014 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C. 425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 302 Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER THIAW, CATHERINE B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2493 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/07/2014 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 MANDAYAM THONDANUR RAGHUNATH, MARCEL CATALIN ROSU, and DINESH CHANDRA VERMA ____________ Appeal 2011-013647 Application 11/622,119 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20, all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 9, 2011), the Answer (mailed June, 2011), and the Reply Brief (filed August 22, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants Appeal 2011-013647 Application 11/622,119 2 actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010). Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to configuring client access to a network including a first port, and accessing a first server on a first local area network associated with the first port. An authorized local area network other than the first local area network is determined to which an authorized connection can be made based on a client request. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for configuring client access to a network, comprising: at a first port, accessing a first server on a first local area network associated with the first port; determining an authorized local area network other than the first local area network to which an authorized connection can be properly made based on information in a client request; assigning the first port to the authorized local area network; and handling communications with a new client configuration in the authorized local area network, wherein the handling communications with a new client configuration includes responding, by a second server on the authorized local area network, to the client request that was received by but not responded to by the first server. The Examiner’s Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art references: Couillard US 2006/0203815 A1 Sept. 14, 2006 Jabr US 2007/0237148 A1 Oct. 11, 2007 (filed Apr. 10, 2006) Appeal 2011-013647 Application 11/622,119 3 Edwards US 2009/0241108 A1 Sept. 24, 2009 (filed Oct. 28, 2005) Claims 1–6, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jabr. Claims 7 and 11–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jabr in view of Couillard. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jabr in view of Edwards. Claims 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jabr in view of Couillard and Edwards. Claim 10 additionally stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTIONS Claims 1–6, 8, and 10 Appellants contend, with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 10, that Jabr does not teach or suggest a second server on an authorized network that responds to a client request that is received by but not responded to by a first server on a different network as claimed. According to Appellants, the Examiner erred in interpreting Jabr’s VLAN3, the initial upstream LAN assigned to the end user, as receiving an end user client request for connection to an authorized LAN. Reply Br. 7–8. We agree with Appellants. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner has further clarified the stated position by explaining that the Appeal 2011-013647 Application 11/622,119 4 initially assigned VLAN3 is not authorized to receive the user’s request and, accordingly, cannot respond to it. Ans. 14. The Examiner further finds that requests received at a first VLAN, i.e., VLAN3 are redirected to another VLAN, i.e., the newly assigned VLAN4. Id. As argued by Appellants, however, we find no basis for the Examiner’s determination that the end user’s request for an authorized VLAN connection is received by the initially assigned upstream VLAN3, let alone any suggestion that the request is redirected to another VLAN. Ans. 5, 6, 13, 14. As described by Jabr, the end user’s login request is assigned to an authentication VLAN/VPN that, upon completion of authentication, assigns the end user to a different upstream LAN (VLAN4). Jabr, ¶¶ [0032– 0033]. As such, even if Jabr’s authentication VLAN/VPN is considered to correspond to the claimed request receiving first server, the claimed requirements are not satisfied because the VLAN/VPN server responds to the request by assigning a new VLAN to the end user.1 In view of the above discussion, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 10, or the rejection of claims 2–6 and 8, dependent thereon. Claims 7, 9, and 11–20 We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7, 9, and 11–20 in which Jabr is applied in various combinations with 1 Appellants have made other arguments. We do not reach these arguments since the argument discussed supra is dispositive of this rejection. Appeal 2011-013647 Application 11/622,119 5 Couillard and Edwards to address the VLAN isolation features of the rejected claims. We find nothing in Couillard and Edwards that overcomes the innate deficiencies of Jabr discussed supra. 35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION We sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of independent claim 10. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “computer useable medium” language of independent claim 10, when read in light of Appellants’ Specification, is inclusive of transitory propagating signals. As pointed out by the Examiner, the “computer useable medium” is described in Appellants’ disclosure as “any apparatus that may include, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus or device.” Spec., ¶ [0021]. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential-in-part). “A transitory, propagating signal [however] . . . is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ [These] four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). CONCLUSION Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), but did not err in rejecting claim 10 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appeal 2011-013647 Application 11/622,119 6 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is affirmed-in-part. 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-IN-PART gvw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation