Ex Parte Varney et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2018

14088367 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/088,367 11/23/2013 Lewis Robert Varney 21398 7590 10/01/2018 Level 3 Communications, LLC Attn: Patent Docketing 1025 Eldorado Blvd. Broomfield, CO 80021 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. 0447-US-U39 2925 EXAMINER MEKONEN, TESFU N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/01/2018 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): patent.docketing@level3.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEWIS ROBERT VARNEY, LAURENCE R. LIPSTONE, WILLIAM CROWDER, ANDREW SWART, and CHRISTOPHER NEWTON Appeal2018-000161 Application 14/088,367 1 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVINE. BRANCH, and STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-10, 12-29, 31, and 32, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Technology The application relates to "on-line learning of approximate client IP locations based on the data reduction facilities of [ a content delivery network] architecture." Spec. ,r 1349. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Level 3 Communications, LLC. Br. 2. Appeal2018-000161 Application 14/088,367 Illustrative Claim Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at issue emphasized: 1. A computer-implemented method, in a content delivery (CD) network comprising multiple CD service endpoints, the method comprising: (A)(l) receiving a first request including a resolver IP address, said first request being associated with a client; (A)(2) responding to said first request with a probe IP address, said probe IP address corresponding to a probe service; and (A)(3) generating first log information about said first request; (B) by said probe service associated with said probe IP address: (B)(l) receiving a second request, said second request including a client IP address associated with said client; and (B)(2) generating second log information about said second request, said second log information including said client IP address; ( C)(l) determining a pseudo client IP address using said first log information and said second log information; and (C)(2) associating said pseudo client IP address with said resolver IP address; and then (D) responsive to a subsequent request from said client including said resolver IP address, using said pseudo client IP address to resolve said request. 2 Appeal2018-000161 Application 14/088,367 References and Rejection2,3 Claims 1-10, 12-29, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Stolarz (US 8,645,571 B2; issued Feb. 4, 2014) and Seastrom (US 2013/0173769; published July 4, 2013). Final Act. 5-23. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants 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. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, to the extent consistent with our analysis herein. Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "(C)(l) determining a pseudo client IP address ... and (C)(2) associating said pseudo client IP address with said resolver IP address." The Examiner finds Seastrom discloses limitations (C)(l) and (C)(2) quoted above. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Seastrom ,r 33 and Fig. IC). Appellants argue error on the basis that Seastrom does not disclose a pseudo client IP address because Seastrom produces a CNAME response, which Appellants assert is not an IP address, and does not "resemble" an IP address. Br. 10-11. Appellants contend "[ e ]ven if Seastrom somehow 2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief filed March 29, 2017 ("Br."), as well as the following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed September 2, 2016 ("Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer mailed July 28, 2017 ("Ans."). 3 The Examiner withdrew a 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 rejection of claim 31. Ans. 2. 3 Appeal2018-000161 Application 14/088,367 includes an IP address as part of a CNAME (i.e., as part of a domain name), that does not mean that the CNAME is or becomes an IP address or a pseudo client IP address." Br. 11. With reference to original claim 10, the Examiner finds "[ t ]he invention disclosure defined the 'pseudo client IP address' as actual client IP address." Ans. 3. Original claim 10 recites "said pseudo client IP address is an actual client IP address." Spec. 332. Thus, the Examiner's construction is consistent with Appellants' Specification in that, as recited in original claim 10, "pseudo client IP address" is at least broad enough to include an "actual client IP address." Appellants do not direct our attention to an express or implied definition of "pseudo client IP address" that is at odds with the Examiner's construction and as such, we find the Examiner's construction to be reasonable in light of the Specification. The Examiner further finds Seastrom "discloses a client IP address along with the generated CNAME." Ans. 3 (citing Seastrom ,r 33 ("the processor 124 of the metadata aware DNS server 122 parses the CNAME response to obtain the IP address of the [client]")). Seastrom states that "[i]n response, the processor 114 generates a CNAME response that includes the IP address of computing device B 106 in the form: foo.cdn.twc.com IN CNAME 4.3.2.1.foo.cdn.twc.com. Seastrom ,r 33 (emphasis added). The Examiner further finds "[t]he determined client IP address will be used to communicate with other servers[, so] the determined client IP [is] used for subsequent communication with other servers in the network." Ans. 4 ( citing Seastrom ,r 33 ("This address is returned to the intelligent name 4 Appeal2018-000161 Application 14/088,367 server 112, which then forwards a response to computing device B 106. Computing device B then accesses the edge cache server 132.")). In view of the foregoing, Appellants' argument that a CNAME is not a pseudo client IP address is unpersuasive of error because the Examiner does not map pseudo client IP address to CNAME alone. Rather, the Examiner maps pseudo client IP address to "client IP address with the CNAME as a response." Ans. 3. Accordingly, we also are unpersuaded of error based on Appellants' argument that "[ e ]ven if Seastrom somehow includes an IP address as part of a CNAME (i.e., as part of a domain name), that does not mean that the CNAME is or becomes an IP address or a pseudo client IP address." Br. 11. "The CNAME response with the client IP address determined as provided above ... will be used to communicate with other servers," as the Examiner finds. Ans. 4 (citing Seastrom ,r 33). Accordingly, on this record, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Seastrom produces a response that includes a CNAME and a client IP address, which is subsequently used to resolve a request. Id. at 4; see Seastrom Fig IC and ,r 33. We thus sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-10, 12-29, 31, and 32, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See Br. 11-12; 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37( c )(1 )(iv). DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10, 12-29, 31, and 32. 5 Appeal2018-000161 Application 14/088,367 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). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 6