Ex Parte Raghunath et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2014

11622119 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 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.
11/622,119 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