Ex Parte Filgueiras et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2018

13924357 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/924,357 06/21/2013
69316 7590 09/28/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Henrique Filgueiras
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.
338716-US-NP 9806
EXAMINER
ASRES, HERMON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENRIQUE FILGUEIRAS, MITESH DESAI,
MAHMOUD ELHADDAD, MINGTZONG LEE, YESA YI
HOVNANYAN,MUKUNDSANKARANARAYAN,
andNARGANAPATHY
Appeal2018-001708
Application 13/924,357
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Microsoft
Technology Licensing, LLC and Microsoft Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001708
Application 13/924,357
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to resolving conflicts in network
control operations by considering the current operational mode of the
network adapter. See Spec. ,r,r 1-2. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the
invention, reads as follows:
1. A method of managing operational modes of a
network adapter, comprising:
receiving a user initiated request for a network control
operation associated with a first virtual adapter, the first virtual
adapter being from a plurality of virtual adapters that are each
interfaced to a wireless medium via the network adapter, and
the user initiated request being a request from the user to
manage the network adapter or to manage the interfacing of
network adapter to one or more networks;
determining a conflict between executing the requested
network control operation and a current operational mode of the
network adapter, the current operational mode of the network
adapter being associated with a second virtual adapter of the
plurality of virtual adapters;
determining that the requested network control operation
is associated with a priority level that allows preemption of the
current operational mode;
in response to determining the conflict and determining
that the requested network control operation is associated with
the priority level that allows preemption of the current
operational mode, canceling or deferring the current operational
mode of the network adapter;
executing the requested network control operation; and
in response to a completion of the execution of the
requested network control operation, restarting or resuming the
canceled or deferred operational mode of the network adapter.
2
Appeal2018-001708
Application 13/924,357
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Bahl (US 2004/0223469 Al; Pub. Nov. 11, 2004), Spitaels
(US 2005/0246431 Al; Pub. Nov. 3, 2005), and Baek (US 2010/0069006
Al; Pub. Mar. 18, 2010. See Final Act. 3-16.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Bahl discloses all the recited
elements of the claim except for "determining a conflict between executing
the requested network control operation and a current operational mode of
the network adapter," for which the Examiner relies on Paragraph 23 of
Spitaels. See Final Act. 5. The Examiner further relies on Paragraphs 34,
3 8, 51, 41, and 61 of Baek as disclosing "the user initiated request being a
request from the user to manage the network adapter or to manage the
interfacing of network adapter to one or more networks." See Final Act. 5-
6.
Appellants contend the Examiner's rejection is in error because
Spitaels and Baek do not disclose the purported limitations they were
applied for. App. Br. 7-11. Appellants argue, in applying Bahl, the
Examiner fails to fully consider the recitation of"' canceling or deferring the
current operational mode of the network adapter' is 'in response to
determining the conflict' (emphasis added) in addition to being in response
to 'determining that the requested network control operation is associated
with the priority level allows preemption[ J '. " App. Br. 8. With respect to
Spitaels, Appellants argue "a conflict in addresses" does not relate or teaches
the claimed "determining a conflict between executing the requested
3
Appeal2018-001708
Application 13/924,357
network control operation and a current operational mode of the network
adapter." App. Br. 9. In that regard, Appellants assert the address conflict
in Spitaels relates to the network interface, whereas the claimed operations
and conflict are directed to the network adapter. Id. Finally, Appellants
argue Baek is not related to network adapters because the reference
discusses that "the user's request [is] associated with service determination"
and that "a service requested by the user is classified as a high priority
service." App. Br. 11. 2
In response, the Examiner explains that:
Examiner respectfully disagree and would like to point out that
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light
of the specification. Examiner would again like to point to
Paragraph [0054] of applicant's specification as filed which
explains the conflict between a requested network control
operation and a current operational mode of the network
adapter. One example is a conflict being detected if a network
adapter is unable service the requested network control
operation while in the current operational mode. Spitaels in
paragraph [0069] teaches detecting a conflict when the network
device is in router mode (Note "this is the current operational
mode of the network adapter) and is unable to forward traffic
between a LAN and a WAN ports. ( emphasis added).
Ans. 20-21. The Examiner further finds the user initiated request is taught
by Baek. Ans. 21 ( citing Baek ,r 63).
Appellants contend the Examiner's restated position in the Answer is
still unresponsive to the argued point "regarding the nexus between the
'determining [ of] the conflict' and the 'canceling or deferring the current
operational mode of the network adapter' represented by the 'in response to'
2 We do not address Appellants' other contentions because this contention is
dispositive of the issue on appeal.
4
Appeal2018-001708
Application 13/924,357
language of claim 1." Reply Br. 3--4. Additionally, Appellants address the
Examiner's new citation to Paragraph 69 of Spitaels and argue the cited
paragraph "is directed to the forwarding/non-forwarding of data when
network address ranges for various ports of a router are overlapping ( e.g.,
due to use of the same private subnetwork address ranges)" and "an
ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that these portions of Spitaels
relate to use Spitaels' networks' rather than the control/management of a
network adapter." Reply Br. 5.
Based on a review of Bahl, we are persuaded by Appellants'
contention that the Examiner has not explained how the canceling or
deferring the current operational mode takes place in response to
determining the conflict. Similarly, the Examiner's findings with respect to
Spitaels do not address the deficiencies pointed out by Appellants with
respect to "control/management of a network adapter." Id. Paragraph 69 of
Spitaels, at best, discloses selecting a particular network when an
overlapping range exists for the network addresses, which is unrelated to
determining a conflict between executing an existing operation and a
requested operation, as required by claim 1. In other words, the Examiner
has not explained how the teachings of Spitaels with respect to a network
addresses conflict relates to any conflict between a requested operation and a
current operation that results in canceling or deferring the low priority
operation and resuming that operation after the high priority operation is
completed.
Therefore, Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's position with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 and
independent claims 6 and 16, which recite similar limitations. We therefore
5
Appeal2018-001708
Application 13/924,357
do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 16, as well as claims 2-5, 7-
15 and 17-20, dependent therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
REVERSED
6