Ex Parte Xia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 2016

12040705 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/040,705 02/29/2008 74365 7590 05/03/2016 Slater Matsil, LLP 17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75252 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Qin Xia 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. HW 0848045US 9923 EXAMINER HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/03/2016 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): uspatent@huawei.com docketing@slatermatsil.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte QIN XIA and BEHCET SARIKA YA Appeal2014-005631 Application 12/040,705 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the present patent application. (Final Act. 1-2; App. Br. 1, 4.)1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec."), filed Feb. 29, 2008 (claiming benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/904,524 (filed Mar. 1, 2007)) and Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed Oct. 7, 2013. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Jan. 31, 2014, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed May 9, 2013. Appeal2014-005631 Application 12/040,705 Appellants 'Invention The invention at issue concerns network components (apparatuses), systems, and methods for optimizing routing of data in a mobile communication network utilizing IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6). The system utilizes a mobile access gateway (MAG) to transmit a proxy binding update (PBU) message from a first device (access router associated with a mobile node) to a second device (access router), the MAG attaches a proxy care-of test (COT) initiation request to the PBU message to initiate a proxy COT on behalf of the mobile node. The MAG initiates the proxy COT without prompting from the mobile node. (Spec. 1:17-21, 3:5-7:4; Abstract.) Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A network component, comprising: a storage medium; a processor coupled with the storage medium; a first interface coupled with the processor, the first interface being associated with a first access network device associated with a mobile node; and a second interface coupled with the processor and a second access network device, wherein the first interface is configured to receive a handover context from the first access network device; and the second interface is configured to: transmit, by a mobile access gateway, a first proxy binding update (PBU) message to the second access network device, 2 Appeal2014-005631 Application 12/040,705 wherein the mobile access gateway attaches a proxy care-of test initiation request to the PBU message in order to initiate a proxy care-of test on behalf of the mobile node, the proxy care-of test being initiated directly by the mobile access gateway without prompting from the mobile node; receive, by the mobile access gateway, a care-of keygen token from the second access network device in response to the first proxy binding update; send, from the mobile access gateway, a second proxy binding update message in response to the care-of keygen token to the second access network device to initiate a complete proxy binding update exchange; and receive, by the mobile access gateway, a proxy binding acknowledge (PBA) message from the second access network device to establish a direct route between the network component and the second access network device. Re} ection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maenpaa (US 2005/0088994 Al, pub. Apr. 28, 2005), Lee (US 2006/0098575 Al, pub. May 11, 2006), and Taniuchi (US 2008/0207206 Al, pub. Aug. 28, 2008 (filed Jan. 11, 2008, claiming benefit of US 60/891,349, filed Feb. 23, 2007)). ISSUES Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues before us follow: 1. Does the Examiner err in finding that Maenpaa, Lee, and Taniuchi collectively would have taught or suggested "the mobile access 3 Appeal2014-005631 Application 12/040,705 gateway attaches a proxy care-of test initiation request to the PBU message in order to initiate a proxy care-of test on behalf of the mobile node, the proxy care-of test being initiated directly by the mobile access gateway without prompting from the mobile node" within the meaning of Appellants' claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 10 and 19? 2. Does the Examiner err in finding that Maenpaa, Lee, and Taniuchi collectively would have taught or suggested a "cryptographically generated address (CGA) parameters" (see claim 2) "wherein the CGA parameters are generated based on the home address of the mobile node" as recited in Appellants' claim 3 and the commensurate limitations of claim 12?2 3. Does the Examiner err in finding that Maenpaa, Lee, and Taniuchi collectively would have taught or suggested "calculat[ing] a binding authorization data option of the second PBU message based on the temporary keygen token and the care-of keygen token" as recited in Appellants' claim 4 and the commensurate limitations of claims 13? 4. Does the Examiner err in finding that Maenpaa, Lee, and Taniuchi collectively would have taught or suggested "calculat[ing] a binding authorization data option field of the second PBU message based on the care-of keygen token" as recited in Appellants' claim 7 and the commensurate limitations of claims 16? 2 Appellants provide nominal arguments with respect to dependent claim 3 (Br. 5) and dependent claim 12 (Br. 7), asserting that Lee does not disclose CGA parameters (infra). (See Br. 5, 7.) Appellants, however, do not mention dependent claim 2 or dependent claim 11 upon which claims 3 and 12 (respectively) depend. We address this matter in more detail, infra. 4 Appeal2014-005631 Application 12/040,705 ANALYSIS The 35 USCÂ§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 15, and 17-20 Appellants provide nominal separate arguments for independent claims 10 (Br. 6-7) and 19 (Br. 8), but merely reiterate the arguments made with respect to claim 1. Therefore, Appellants do not separately argue independent claims 10 and 19, or dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20. (Br. 4-8.) Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative of Appellants' arguments and grouping with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 15, and 17-20. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We concur with and adopt the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner (Final Act. 4-6; Ans. 2-12, 17-22), and we provide the following for emphasis. Appellants contend that Taniuchi does not teach the disputed features of representative claim 1, namely, "the mobile access gateway attach[ing] a proxy care-of test initiation request to the PBU message ... to imtrnte a proxy care-of test on behalf of the mobile node" and "the proxy care-of test being initiated directly by the mobile access gateway without prompting from the mobile node" (claim 1). (See Br. 4-5.) We find Appellants' contentions unpersuasive of Examiner error. Initially, Appellants misconstrue the Examiner's rejection and do not actually address the Examiner's bases for rejecting claim 1. (Compare Br. 4-5, with Final Act. 4-6; see also Ans. 2-8.) The Examiner clarifies that Maenpaa and Lee teach a network element attaching a proxy care-of test initiation request to a proxy binding update (PBU) message to initiate a proxy care-of test for a mobile node and that the proxy care-oftest is directly initiated by the network element without prompting from the mobile node 5 Appeal2014-005631 Application 12/040,705 (Ans. 7, 21; see Ans. 2-12, 17-22). The Examiner further explains that Taniuchi describes a mobile access gateway (MAG) sending a PBU message (Ans. 7-8, 21; see 2-12, 17-22). Appellants failed to file a Reply Brief rebutting these clarified findings and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. Further, Appellants do not explain why combining the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the manner proffered by the Examiner would have been beyond the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.398,418(2007D. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative claim 1; independent claims 10 and 19; and dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20, not separately argued with particularity (supra). The 35 USCÂ§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 16 The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 16 as being obvious over Maenpaa, Lee, and Taniuchi. With respect to dependent claim 3 (and dependent claim 12), Appellants contend that Lee, cited by the Examiner as teaching cryptographically generated address (CGA) parameters (see Final Act. 7; Ans. 15-16, 23) does not teach this (disputed) feature of claim 3 (or claim 12). (Br. 5, 7.) We agree with Appellants that Lee does not describe CGA parameters. (Br. 5, 7 .) In fact, the Examiner does not appear to even 6 Appeal2014-005631 Application 12/040,705 address this recited feature of claims 3 and 12. (See discussion of claim 2 (Final Act. 6).) Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding Lee (in combination with Maenpaa and Taniuchi) teaches the disputed limitations of Appellants' dependent claim 3 and 12. Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 12. With respect to dependent claims 4 and 13, the Examiner cites Lee as teaching calculating a binding authorization data option based on a temporary keygen token and a care-of keygen token. (Final Act. 7; Ans. 13- 14, 23.) Appellants contend that Lee does not teach these features of claims 4 and 13. (See Br. 5-7.) We agree with Appellants that "the cited portions of Lee do not mention either 'temporary home keygen tokens' or 'binding authorization data options"' (Br. 6). (See Br. 5-7.) The cited portions of Lee (i1i18, 51, 73; Figs. 14-15) mention a home keygen token field (i-f 73, Fig. 14) and a care-of keygen token field (Fig. 15), but do not explicitly describe temporary home keygen tokens or binding authorization data options as recited in claims 4 and 12. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding Lee (in combination with Maenpaa and Taniuchi) teaches the disputed limitations of Appellants' dependent claim 4 and 13. Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 13. With respect to dependent claims 7 and 16, Appellants reiterate the contentions made with respect to claims 4 and 13. (Br. 6, 8.) As with claims 4 and 13 (supra), we agree with Appellants that Lee does not explicitly describe binding authorization data options. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding Lee (in combination with Maenpaa and Taniuchi) teaches the disputed 7 Appeal2014-005631 Application 12/040,705 limitations of Appellants' dependent claims 7 and 16, and we reverse the Examiner's rejection of these claims. CONCLUSIONS Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, and 16 and affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 14, 15, and 17-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ l.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8