Ex Parte Takahashi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 201410453430 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 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. 10/453,430 06/03/2003 Naoki Takahashi JP920020107US1 1857 53493 7590 05/29/2014 LENOVO (US) IP Law 1009 Think Place Building One, 4th Floor 4B6 Morrisville, NC 27560 EXAMINER NGUYEN, THUONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2453 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2014 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 NAOKI TAKAHASHI, TAKASHI INUI, MASAHIKO NOMURA, and MIZUHO TADOKORO __________ Appeal 2012-001984 Application 10/453,430 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-001984 Application 10/453,430 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Naoki Takahashi, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 27-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM.1 THE INVENTION Claim 27, the sole independent claim, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 27. A method for managing IP addresses, said method comprising: receiving an IP address from a server by a control computer; utilizing said IP address by said control computer to provide network communications with another computer on a network; in response to a halting process being initiated by said control computer, sending a message by said control computer to inform said server that the usage of said IP address has been terminated such that said IP address is available to be re-assigned by said server; and thereafter, completing said halting process to place said control computer in a halt state. 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed May 27, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 8, 2011). Appeal 2012-001984 Application 10/453,430 3 THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Warchol Sung Bahl US 5,652,837 US 2002/0038369 A1 US 6,957,276 B1 Jul. 29, 1997 Mar. 28, 2002 Oct. 18, 2005 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 27, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Sung. 2. Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Sung and Bahl. 3. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Sung, Bahl, and Warchol. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 27, 29, 32 under §102 as being anticipated by Sung? There are no issues raised with respect to the §103 rejections as they are not addressed in the brief. FINDINGS OF FACT We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below. Appeal 2012-001984 Application 10/453,430 4 ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 27, 29, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Sung. Claim 27 is the sole independent claim. Appellants argue Claims 27, 29, 32 as a group. App. Br. 4. Therefore, we select claim 27 as the representative claim and claims 29 and 32 stand or fall with claim 27. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011 The Appellants make three general arguments: “I. Sung’s providing Internet service is different from the claimed providing network communications with another computer on a network.” Br. 4. “II. Sung does not disclose the claimed sending step.” Br. 5. “III. Sung does not disclose placing the claimed control computer in a halt state.” Br. 6. In each case, the argument does not treat the Examiner’s position. Throughout the brief, the Appellants argue that Sung’s mobile terminal 10 is different from the control computer as claimed. See, e.g., Br. 6: “the termination of mobile terminal 10 is different from placing a control computer in a halt state, as claimed.” But, the Examiner has taken the position that Sung’s interface unit 1, not Sung’s mobile terminal 10, equates to the claim control computer. See e.g., Ans. 5 (emphasis added): receiving an IP address from a server by a control computer (Sung, figure 1; page 2, [¶ [0029]]; i.e., when receiving the connection termination signal from the interface unit 1, central management server 2, received the released the dynamic IP address). Appeal 2012-001984 Application 10/453,430 5 Sung’s ¶ [0029], that the Examiner cites to, describes Sung’s interface unit receiving a dynamic IP address and utilizing that address to provide internet service to a mobile unit. In step S302, the interface unit I receiving the dynamic IP address data and the usage authentication signal from the central management server 2 allocates the received dynamic IP address to the connected mobile terminal 10 of the user so that the mobile terminal 10 of the user is provided with internet service by using the dynamic IP address allocated from the lines connected by the interface unit 1 and the central management server 2 (S303). Sung ¶ [0029]. It is necessarily the case that in describing providing “internet service” Sung inherently describes providing network communications with another computer on a network; this is so because the internet is a network of computers. Since Sung’s interface unit passes on the dynamic IP address for usage with the internet, Sung necessarily describes “‘utilizing said IP address . . . to provide network communications with another computer on a network’” as claimed. Ans. 9. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Argument I. that the rejection is in error. As to Argument II, the claim step at issue is “‘ . . . sending a message by said control computer to inform said server that the usage of said IP address has been terminated such that said IP address is available to be re- assigned by said server.’” Br. 5 The Examiner takes the position that this is described at ¶ [0037] of Sung. sending a message by said control computer to inform said server that the usage of said IP address has been terminated such that said IP address is available to be re-assigned by said server (Sung, page 3, [Para [0037]]; i.e., central management server 2 releases the allocation Appeal 2012-001984 Application 10/453,430 6 of the dynamic I P address allocated to the mobile terminal 10 according to the connection termination signal). Ans. 5. The Appellants argue In paragraph 0037, lines 1-2, Sung teaches that when interface unit 1 receives a connection termination signal, interface unit 1 then transmits the connection termination signal to central management server 2. Thus, it is interface unit 1, and not mobile terminal 10 (which was previously re-characterized as the claimed control computer by the Examiner), that sends a connection termination signal to central management server 2. In addition, it is a “connection termination signal” that’s sent to central management server 2, and the “connection termination signal” does not convey the same meaning as the claimed message of informing “said server that the usage of said IP address has been terminated such that said IP address is available to be reassigned by said server” (emphasis added). Br. 5-6 We do not agree that the Examiner re-characterized the “mobile terminal” as the control computer. We find that it is Sung’s interface unit which is sending a connection termination signal. Reading Sung’s para [0037] bears this out. “[T]he control unit 21 of the interface unit 1 transmits usage time information, usage fee information, and a connection termination signal to the central management server 2.” Para [0037], (emphasis added). Paragraph [0037] also clearly states that the central server, after receiving the connection termination signal, “releases the allocation of the dynamic IP address allocated to the mobile terminal.” This release disassociates the mobile terminal with the IP address and allows the server to reassign/reallocate the IP address to another user. See ¶ [0029]. The connection termination signal is an indication that the mobile device no Appeal 2012-001984 Application 10/453,430 7 longer requires the IP address and usage of the internet, i.e. shutoff of internet service, power off of mobile terminal. Id. ¶ [0029]. Clearly, the connection termination signal is a signal informing “said server that the usage of said IP address has been terminated such that said IP address is available to be reassigned by said server” as required by the claim step at issue. Id. ¶ [0029]. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Argument II, that Sung does not expressly describe “sending a message by said control computer to inform said server that the usage of said IP address has been terminated such that said IP address is available to be re-assigned by said server” as claim 27. Lastly, Argument III. challenges the Examiner’s position that Sung describes the claim step “thereafter, completing said halting process to place said control computer in a halt state” (claim 27). The Examiner’s position is that Sung describes said step at ¶ [0029] of Sung. thereafter, completing said halting process to place said control computer in a halt state (Sung, page 2,[¶ [0029]]; i.e., terminates the entire process after released the IP address). Ans. 5. The Appellants argue: On page 3 of the Final Office Action, the Examiner asserts that the claimed completing step is disclosed by Sung in [¶] [0029]. In [¶] [0029], Sung teaches that the termination of communication so that charges are transacted. However, Sung does not disclose “completing said halting process to place said control computer in a halt state” (emphasis added), as claimed. Appeal 2012-001984 Application 10/453,430 8 In addition, in ¶ [0036], Sung teaches various methods for terminating mobile terminal 10 when a user wishes to terminate work through interface unit 1 with mobile terminal 10. However, the termination of mobile terminal 10 is different from placing a control computer in a halt state, as claimed. Contrary to the Examiner's assertion in the Advisory Action, a termination signal is not equivalent to the claimed halting process because mobile terminal 10 simply terminates its work through interface unit 1, but mobile terminal 10 is never placed in a halt state according to Sung. Br. 6. But, as we noted earlier, it appears that the Appellants are looking to Sung’s “mobile terminal” when in fact the Examiner is pointing to Sung’s “interface unit.” As explained in para [0037] (see supra), Sung’s interface unit will terminate the entire process for a particular IP address once the connection termination messages have been sent, charge receipt provided, and the central server releases the IP address. As the Examiner appears to explain, this termination indicates the halting of the interface unit because the interface unit (and the control unit inside the interface unit) no longer needs to execute the process. In other words, the interface unit is in a halting state with respect to the mobile terminal because the mobile terminal is no longer interacting nor connecting with the interface unit. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Argument III that Sung does not expressly describe “thereafter, completing said halting process to place said control computer in a halt state” (claim 27) as claimed. The rejection of claim 27, and claims 29 and 39 that stand or fall with it, is sustained. Appeal 2012-001984 Application 10/453,430 9 The rejection of claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Sung and Bahl. The rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Sung, Bahl, and Warchol. The brief does not address these rejections. Accordingly, they are summarily sustained. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 27, 29, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Sung is affirmed The rejection of claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Sung and Bahl is affirmed. The rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Sung, Bahl, and Warchol is affirmed. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 27-32 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). AFFIRMED rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation