I 1111111111111111 11111 111111111111111 IIIII IIIII IIIII 11111 111111111111111111
`US006779118C2
`c12) INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATE (1128th)
`us 6,779,118 C2
`United States Patent
`(10) Number:
`Ikudome et al.
`(45) Certificate Issued:
`Jun. 8, 2015
`
`(54) USER SPECIFIC AUTOMATIC DATA
`REDIRECTION SYSTEM
`
`(75)
`
`Inventors: Koichiro Ikudome, Arcadia, CA (US);
`Moon Tai Yeung, Alhambra, CA (US)
`
`(73) Assignee: LINKSMART WIRELESS
`TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Pasadena, CA
`(US)
`
`Reexamination Request:
`No. 95/002,035, Sep. 12, 2012
`
`(58) Field of Classification Search
`None
`See application file for complete search history.
`
`(56)
`
`References Cited
`
`To view the complete listing of prior art documents cited
`during the proceedings for Reexamination Control Numbers
`95/002,035 and 90/012,342, please refer to the USPTO's
`public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)
`system under the Display References tab.
`
`No. 90/012,342, Jun. 8, 2012
`
`Primary Examiner -
`
`Jalatee Worjloh
`
`Reexamination Certificate for:
`6,779,118
`Patent No.:
`Aug. 17, 2004
`Issued:
`09/295,966
`Appl. No.:
`Apr. 21, 1999
`Filed:
`
`Reexamination Certificate Cl 6,779,118 issued Mar. 27,
`2012
`
`Related U.S. Application Data
`
`(60) Provisional application No. 60/084,014, filed on May
`4, 1998.
`
`(51)
`
`Int. Cl.
`H04L29/06
`(52) U.S. Cl.
`CPC ...................................... H04L 29106 (2013.01)
`
`(2006.01)
`
`(57)
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`A data redirection system for redirecting user's data based on
`a stored rule set. The redirection of data is performed by a
`redirection server, which receives the redirection rule sets for
`each user from an authenication and accounting server, and a
`database. Prior to using the system, users authenticate with
`the authenication and accounting server, and receive a net(cid:173)
`work address. The authentication and accounting server
`retrieves the proper rule set for the user, and communicates
`the rule set and the user's address to the redirection server.
`The redirection server then implements the redirection rule
`set for the user's address. Rule sets are removed from the
`redirection server either when the user disconnects, or based
`on some predetermined event. New rule sets are added to the
`redirection server either when a user connects, or based on
`some predetermined event.
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 1 of 1980
`
`

`

`2
`
`US 6,779,118 C2
`
`1
`INTER PARTES
`REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATE
`ISSUED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 316
`
`THE PATENT IS HEREBY AMENDED AS
`INDICATED BELOW.
`
`AS A RESULT OF REEXAMINATION, IT HAS BEEN
`DETERMINED THAT:
`
`10
`
`Claims 1, 8, 15 and 25 were previously cancelled.
`Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-24 and 26-90 are cancelled.
`* * * * *
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 2 of 1980
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`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.
`
`09/12/2012
`
`95/002,035
`
`<::tel a\8.01..\:}.
`05/ 19/20 I 5
`7590
`4040 I
`Hershkovitz and Associates, PLLC
`2845 Duke Street
`Alexandria, YA 22314
`
`6779118
`
`EXAMINER
`
`WORJLOH, JALATEE
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`05/19/2015
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`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)
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 3 of 1980
`
`

`

`Transmittal of Communication to
`Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`95/002,035 -f"c,r,/4)), 3 ¥2- 6779118
`
`Examiner
`
`Art Unit
`
`-· The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. -·
`
`Jalatee Woriloh
`
`3992
`
`1~ - (THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS) - - j
`
`Haynes & Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`in the above-identified reexamination prceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this communication,
`the third party requester of the inter part.es reexamination may once file written comments within a
`period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's response. This 30-day time period is
`statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parle reexamin_ation has been merged with the inter part.es reexamination, no responsive
`submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of the
`communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2070 (Rev. 07-04)
`
`Paper No. 20150504
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 4 of 1980
`
`

`

`Transmittal of Communication to
`Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`90/012,342 and 95/002,035
`Examiner
`
`6779118
`Art Unit
`
`Jalatee Woriloh
`
`3992
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`1......-- (THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`James J. Wong
`2108 Gossamer Avenue
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`in the above-identified reexamination prceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this communication,
`the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file written comments within a
`period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's response. This 30-day time period is
`statutory (35 U.S.C. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no responsive
`submission by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of the
`communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2070 (Rev. 07-04)
`
`PaperNo.20150504
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 5 of 1980
`
`

`

`NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE INTER PARTES
`REEXAMINA T/ON CERT/FICA TE
`
`Control No.
`Patent Under Reexamination
`6779118
`95/002,035 and 90/012,342
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`Jalatee Worjloh
`3992
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`igj Prosecution on the merits is (or remains) closed in this inter partes reexamination proceeding. This proceeding is
`subject to reopening at the initiative of the Office or upon petition. Cf. 37 CFR 1.313(a). A Certificate will be issued
`in view of:
`by
`a. D The communication filed on
`b. D Patent owner's failure to file an appropriate timely response to the Office action
`dated
`The failure to timely file an Appeal with fee by all parties to the reexamination proceeding entitled
`so. 37 CFR 1.959 and 41.61.
`d. D The failure to timely file an Appellant's Brief with fee by all parties to the reexamination
`entitled to do so. 37 CFR 41.66(a).
`igj The decision on appeal by the igj Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences D Court dated 2/20/2015
`e.
`f. D Other:
`
`c.
`
`to do
`
`proceeding
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`igj The Reexamination Certificate will indicate the following:
`a. Change in the Specification: D Yes igj No
`b. Change in the Drawings: D Yes igj No
`c. Status of the Claims:
`(1) Patent claim(s) confirmed:
`(2) Patent claim(s) amended (including dependent on amended claim(s)):
`(3) Patent claim(s) cancelled: 2-7, 9-14, 16-24 and 26-90.
`(4) Newly presented claim(s) patentable:
`(5) Newly presented cancelled claims:
`
`(6) Patent claim(s) D previously D currently disclaimed:
`
`(7) Patent claim(s) not subject to reexamination:
`
`3. D Note the attached statement of reasons for patentability and/or confirmation. Any comments considered
`necessary by patent owner regarding reasons for patentability and/or confirmation must be submitted promptly to
`avoid processing delays. Such submission(s) should be labeled: "Comments On Statement of Reasons for
`Patentability and/or Confirmation."
`
`(cid:143) Note attached NOTICE OF REFERENCE CITED, (PTO-892).
`(cid:143) Note attached LIST OF REFERENCES CITED (PTO/SB/08 or PTO/SB/08 substitute).
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6. D The drawings filed on
`
`is:
`
`D approved D disapproved.
`
`7. D Acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) - (d) or (f).
`a)D All
`b)D Some*
`c)D None
`of the certified copies have
`
`D been received.
`D not been received.
`D been filed in Application No.
`.
`D been filed in reexamination Control No.
`D been received by the International Bureau in PCT Application No.
`
`* Certified copies not received:
`igJ Note Examiner's Amendment.
`
`8.
`
`(cid:143) Other:
`
`9.
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central
`Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this Office action.
`
`/Jalatee Worjloh/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`Part of Paper No. 20150504
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2068 (07-10)
`NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATE
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 6 of 1980
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/002,035 and 90/012,342
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATE
`
`Summary
`
`This Office action terminates the prosecution of inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,779,118 to Ikudome, et al.
`
`Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-24 and 26-90 were subject to reexamination. The rejection of
`
`claims 16-24, 26, 27, 36-43, 68 ru:id 90 were appealed. In light of the Board decision dated
`
`February 20, 2015, the appealed claims are canceled by examiner's amendment. Also, non(cid:173)
`
`appealed, but rejected claims 2-7, 9-14, 28-35, 44-67, 69-89 are canceled by examiner's
`
`amendment.
`
`Examiner's Amendment
`
`An examiner's amendment to the record appears below. The changes made by this
`
`examiner's amendment will be reflected on the reexamination certificate to issue in due course.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed as
`follows:
`·
`
`By U.S. Postal Service Mail to:
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Reexam
`ATTN: Central Reexamination Unit Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`By FAX to:
`(571) 273-9900
`. Central Reexamination Unit
`
`By Hand:
`Customer Service Window
`Randolph Building
`401 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 7 of 1980
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 95/002,035 and 90/012,342
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`By EFS-Web:
`Registered users of EFS-Web may ahernatively submit such correspondence via the electronic
`filing system EFS-Web, at
`
`https :/ /efs. uspto. gov/ efile/myportal/ efs-registered
`
`EFS-Web offers the benefit of quick submission to the particular area of the Office that needs to
`act on the correspondence. Also, EFS-Web submissions are "soft scanned" (i.e., electronically
`uploaded) directly into the official file for the reexamination proceeding, which offers parties the
`opportunity to review the content of their submissions after the "soft scanning" process is
`complete.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Central Reexamination
`Unit at telephone number (571)272-7705.
`
`/Jalatee Worjloh/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
`
`Conferees: ·'J-f1 'J_. ~
`
`WOOH.CHOI
`.
`Supervisory Patent Reexamination Specialist
`CRU ~ Art Unit 3992
`
`~~~·
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 8 of 1980
`
`

`

`Application/Control No.
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination
`
`Search Notes
`
`95002035 and 90/012,342
`
`11 11 II 11111111 111
`
`Examiner
`
`JALATEE WORJLOH
`
`6779118
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`CPC-SEARCHED
`
`Symbol
`
`Date
`
`I
`I
`
`I Examiner
`I
`
`. CPC COMBINATION SETS - SEARCHED
`
`Symbol
`
`Date
`
`I
`I
`
`I Examiner
`I
`
`US CLASSIFICATION SEARCHED
`
`Class
`
`I
`I
`
`Subclass
`
`Search Notes
`review of patented file's prosecution history
`
`SEARCH NOTES
`
`I
`I
`
`I
`I
`
`Date
`
`I Examiner
`I
`
`Date
`10/3/2012
`
`I Examiner
`I J.W.
`
`INTERFERENCE SEARCH
`
`US Class/
`CPC Symbol
`
`US Subclass / CPC Group
`
`Date
`
`Examiner
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Part of Paper No.: 20120830
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 9 of 1980
`
`

`

`Application/Control No.
`Issue Classification 95002035
`
`111111111111111
`
`JALATEE WORJLOH
`
`Examiner
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination
`
`6779118
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`CPC
`
`Symbol
`H04
`
`L29
`
`(cid:127)
`(cid:127)
`•
`(cid:127)
`•
`•
`(cid:127)
`(cid:127)
`•
`(cid:127)
`•
`(cid:127)
`•
`•
`•
`•
`(cid:127)
`
`CPC Combination Sets
`
`Symbol
`
`06
`
`Type
`
`I
`
`Version
`01/01/13
`
`Type
`
`Set
`
`Ranking
`
`Version
`
`f:•·1
`::
`1:
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`X'
`~ (,1
`~O,
`1m
`llfJ!I
`!Vt:
`I
`
`I
`
`J,
`II
`
`NONE
`
`(Assistant Examiner)
`/JALATEE WORJLOH/
`Primary Examiner.Art Unit 3992
`
`(Primary Examiner)
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Total Claims Allowed:
`
`none
`
`(Date)
`
`05/04/2015
`
`O.G. Print Claim(s)
`
`O.G. Print Figure
`
`(Date)
`
`none
`
`none
`
`Part of Paper No. 20150504
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 10 of 1980
`
`

`

`Application/Control No.
`Issue Classification 95002035
`
`1111111111
`
`1111 11
`
`JALATEE WORJLOH
`
`Examiner
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination
`
`6779118
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`US ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION
`
`INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION
`
`CLASS
`
`SUBCLASS
`
`CLAIMED
`
`NON-CLAIMED
`
`726
`
`7
`
`H
`
`0
`
`4
`
`L
`
`29 / 06 (2006.0)
`
`CROSS REFERENCE(S)
`
`CLASS
`
`SUBCLASS (ONE SUBCLASS PER BLOCK)
`
`NONE
`
`(Assistant Examiner)
`/JALATEE WORJLOH/
`Primary Examiner.Art Unit 3992
`
`(Primary Examiner)
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Total Claims Allowed:
`
`none
`
`(Date)
`
`05/04/2015
`
`O.G. Print Claim(s)
`
`O.G. Print Figure
`
`(Date)
`
`none
`
`none
`
`Part of Paper No. 20150504
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 11 of 1980
`
`

`

`Application/Control No.
`Issue Classification 95002035
`
`11 11
`
`111 111111
`
`JALATEE WORJLOH
`
`Examiner
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination
`
`6779118
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`(cid:143)
`
`Claims renumbered in the same order as presented by applicant
`
`(cid:143)
`
`CPA
`
`(cid:143)
`
`T.D.
`
`(cid:143)
`
`R.1.47
`
`Final
`
`Original
`
`Final
`
`Original
`
`Final
`
`Original
`
`Final
`
`Original
`
`Final
`
`Original
`
`Final
`
`Original
`
`Final
`
`Original
`
`Final
`
`Original
`
`NONE
`
`(Assistant Examiner)
`/JALATEE WORJLOH/
`Primary Examiner.Art Unit 3992
`
`"(Primary Examiner)
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Total Claims Allowed:
`
`none
`
`(Date)
`
`05/04/2015
`
`O.G. Print Claim(s)
`
`O.G. Print Figure
`
`(Date)
`
`none
`
`none
`
`Part of Paper No. 201 50504
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 12 of 1980
`
`

`

`BIB DATA SHEET
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 223 IJ-1450
`wv,.-w,uspto.gov
`
`CONFIRMATION NO. 1745
`
`SERIAL NUMBER
`
`95/002,035
`
`FILING or 371(c)
`DATE
`09/12/2012
`RULE
`
`CLASS
`
`726
`
`GROUP ART UNIT ATTORNEY DOCKET
`NO.
`3992
`Rl1341006F
`
`APPLICANTS
`INVENTORS
`6779118, Residence Not Provided;
`LINKSMART WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC(OWNER), Pasadena, CA;
`David L. l'v'lcCoii 1bs(3RD PTY REQ), Dallas, TX,
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.(REAL PTY IN INTEREST}, San Jose, CA;
`I IA¥~~ES A~JD BOONE, LLP IP SECTION, D,'\LL.O.S, TX
`** CONTINUING DATA*************************
`This application is a REX of 09/295,966 04/21/1999 PAT 6779118
`which claims benefit of 60/084,014 05/04/1998
`** FOREIGN APPLICATIONS *************************
`** IF REQUIRED, FOREIGN FILING LICENSE GRANTED **
`STATE OR
`COUNTRY
`
`O Metafter
`Allowance
`
`SHEETS
`DRAWINGS
`
`TOTAL
`CLAIMS
`
`INDEPENDENT
`CLAIMS
`
`Foreign Priority claimed
`Oves ~No
`35 USC 119(a-d) conditions met O Yes ~ No
`Verified and
`/JALATEE
`WORJLOH/
`Examine?s S1gnalure
`
`Tniua1s
`
`Acknowledged
`ADDRESS
`Hershkovitz and Associates, PLLC
`2845 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`UNITED STATES
`TITLE
`USER SPECIFIC AUTOMATIC DATA REDIRECTION SYSTEM
`
`I
`
`FEES: Authority has been given in Paper
`FILING FEE
`to charge/credit DEPOSIT ACCOUNT
`RECEIVED No.
`for following:
`No.
`
`BIB (Rev. 05/07).
`
`I
`I
`
`IO 1.17 Fees (Processing Ext. of time)
`
`lo All Fees
`lo 1.16 Fees (Filing)
`lo 1.18 Fees (Issue)
`lo Other
`lo Credit
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 13 of 1980
`
`

`

`Reexamination
`
`Application/Control No.
`
`111 11 111 111 111 II 11 II
`
`95/002,035 and 90/012,342
`Certificate Date
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination
`6779118
`Certificate Number
`C2
`
`Requester Correspondence Address:
`
`(cid:143)
`
`Patent Owner
`
`[8J Third Party
`
`David L. Mccombs
`(For the Inter Partes Requester)
`Haynes & Boone, LLP, IP Section
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`James J. Wong
`2108 Gossamer Avenue
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`
`(For the Ex Parte Requester)
`
`LITIGATION REVIEW
`
`[8J
`
`/J.W./
`(examiner initials)
`
`Case Name
`
`04/05/2013
`(date)
`Director Initials
`
`(OPEN) 8: 12cv522
`
`(CLOSED) 2: 1 0cv277
`
`(CLOSED) 2:09cv26
`
`(CLOSED) 2:09cv26
`
`(CLOSED) 2:08cv385
`
`(CLOSED) 2:08cv304
`
`(CLOSED) 2:08cv264
`
`COPENDING OFFICE PROCEEDINGS
`
`TYPE OF PROCEEDING
`
`NUMBER
`
`1. none
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`DOC. CODE RXFILJKT
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 14 of 1980
`
`

`

`UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`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.
`
`95/002,035
`
`09/12/2012
`
`6779118
`
`RI1341006F
`
`1745
`
`02/20/2015
`7590
`40401
`Hershkovitz and Associates, PLLC
`2845 Duke Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`EXAMINER
`
`WORJLOH, JALATEE
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/20/2015
`
`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)
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 15 of 1980
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`Requester
`
`V.
`
`LINKSMART WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Appeal2014-007780
`Reexamination Control Nos. 95/002,035 and 90/012,342 (merged)
`Patent 6,779,118 Bl
`Technology Center 3900
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, MARC S. HOFF, and
`DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 16 of 1980
`
`

`

`Appeal2014-007780
`Reexamination Control Nos. 95/002,035
`and 90/012,342 (merged)
`Patent 6,779,118 Bl
`
`Patent Owner, Link.smart Wireless Technology, LLC, appeals under
`
`U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315 (2002) the Examiner's decision to adopt Requester's
`rejection of claims 16-24, 26, 27, 36-43, and 68-90 1 under certain grounds,
`
`as discussed below. An oral hearing was conducted with the Patent Owner
`
`on January 28, 2015. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315
`
`(2002).
`
`We AFFIRM.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`This proceeding arose from a request by a Third Party Requester for
`
`an ex parte reexamination (90/009,301) and from a request by Cisco
`
`Systems, Inc. for an inter parte reexamination (95/002,035) of U.S. Patent
`
`6,779, 118 B 1, entitled "User Specific Automatic Data Redirection System,"
`
`and issued to Ikudome et al. on August 17, 2004 (the'" 118 patent"). A
`
`decision sua sponte merged both proceedings into this single inter parte
`
`reexamination proceeding. See Decision Sua Sponte Merging
`
`Reexamination Proceedings, mailed March 20, 2013.
`
`The ' 118 patent describes a system that contains a redirection server
`
`that uses a rule set to control data passing between a user and a public
`
`network.
`
`Claim 16, on appeal, was not amended during reexamination and
`
`reads as follows:
`
`1 While claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-24, and 26-90 are subject to reexamination in
`the merged proceedings, only the claims listed are subject to the present
`appeal. App. Br. 3.
`
`2
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 17 of 1980
`
`

`

`Appeal2014-007780
`Reexamination Control Nos. 95/002,035
`and 90/012,342 (merged)
`Patent 6,779,118 Bl
`
`16. A system comprising:
`a redirection server programmed with a user's rule
`set correlated to a temporarily assigned network address;
`wherein the rule set contains at least one of a
`plurality of functions used to control data passing
`between the user and a public network;
`wherein the redirection server is configured to allow
`automated modification of at least a portion of the rule
`set correlated to the temporarily assigned network
`address;
`wherein the redirection server is configured to allow
`automated modification of at least a portion of the rule
`set as a function of some combination of time, data
`transmitted to or from the user, or location the user
`accesses; and
`wherein the redirection server is configured to allow
`modification of at least a portion of the rule set as a
`function of time.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
`
`Requester proposes rejections of the claims over the following prior
`
`art references:
`
`Fortinsky
`Wong
`Radia
`Willens
`Stockwell
`He
`Coss
`Zenchelsky
`Ikudome
`
`us 5,815,574
`us 5,835,727
`us 5,848,233
`us 5,889,958
`us 5,950,195
`us 6,088,451
`US 6,170,012 Bl
`US 6,233,686 B 1
`US 6,779,118 Bl
`
`Sept. 29, 1998
`Nov. 10, 1998
`Dec. 8, 1998
`March 30, 1999
`Sept. 7, 1999
`July 11, 2000
`Jan.2,2001
`May 15, 2001
`Aug. 17, 2004
`
`C. Rigney, et al., "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS),"
`https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2138 (last accessed January 20, 2012).
`(Hereinafter "RFC2138).
`
`3
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 18 of 1980
`
`

`

`Appeal2014-007780
`Reexamination Control Nos. 95/002,035
`and 90/012,342 (merged)
`Patent 6,779,118 Bl
`
`Patent Owner appeals the Examiner's adoption of the following
`
`rejections:
`
`Claims 16-18, 23, 24, 26, 36-43, 68-71, 76-84, and 86-90 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Willens, RFC2138,
`
`and Stockwell.
`
`Claims 16-18, 23, 24, 26, 36-43, 68-71, 76-84, and 86-90 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Willens, RFC2138,
`
`and Ikudome (hereinafter referred to as APA).
`
`Claims 16-24, 26, 27, 36-43, and 68-90 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over the combination of Radia, Wong, and Stockwell.
`
`Claims 16-24 and 68-90 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`
`combination of Radia, Wong, and Stockwell.
`
`Claims 40-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`
`combination of He, Zenchelsky, and AP A.
`
`Claims 40-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`
`combination of He, Zenchelsky, Fortinsky, and AP A.
`
`Claims 16-24, 26, 27, 36-43, and 68-90 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over the combination of Coss and AP A.
`
`ISSUES
`Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Radia, Wong,
`
`and Stockwell teaches or suggests "the redirection server is configured to
`
`allow automated modification," as recited in independent claims 16-23, 36-
`
`39, and 68?
`
`4
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 19 of 1980
`
`

`

`Appeal2014-007780
`Reexamination Control Nos. 95/002,035
`and 90/012,342 (merged)
`Patent 6,779,118 Bl
`
`Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Radia, Wong,
`
`and Stockwell teaches or suggests "instructions to the redirection sever to
`
`modify the rule set are received by ... the redirection server," as recited in
`
`dependent claim 24, or "receiving instructions by the redirection server to
`
`modify at least a portion of the user's rule set," as recited in independent
`
`claim 83?
`
`Did the Examiner err in combining Radia, Wong, and Stockwell?
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Claims 16-23, 36-39, and 68-82
`
`Patent Owner argues that the rejection of claims 16-23, 36-39, and 68-
`
`82 is in error because the Examiner has interpreted the limitation
`
`"configured to allow modification," as not requiring the redirection server to
`
`be used to perform the modification. App. Br. 13-14; Reb. Br. 10-12.
`
`Patent Owner contends that the correct interpretation, according to the
`
`Specification and the claims, requires the modification to be performed by
`
`the redirection server. App. Br. 14; Reb. Br. 10. Therefore, based on the
`
`Examiner's interpretation, Patent Owner contends that the combination of
`
`Radia, Wong, and Stockwell does not teach the disputed limitation. App.
`
`Br. 14; Reb. Br. 10. We disagree.
`
`Each of independent claims 16-23, 36-39, and 68 recite the following
`
`full limitation "the redirection server is configured to allow automated
`
`modification of at least a portion of the rule set." The Examiner finds
`
`(Ans. 10-11) and Requester agrees (3PR Resp. Br. 6) that this limitation
`
`5
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 20 of 1980
`
`

`

`Appeal2014-007780
`Reexamination Control Nos. 95/002,035
`and 90/012,342 (merged)
`Patent 6,779,118 Bl
`
`should not be so narrowly interpreted as requiring the redirection server to
`
`perform the actual modification. The Examiner (Ans. 11) and Requester
`
`(3PR Resp. Br. 6) both cite to a portion of Patent Owner's Specification that
`
`supports a finding that Patent Owner contemplated something other than the
`
`redirection server performing the modification. Specifically, the Examiner
`
`(Ans. 11) and Requester (3PR Resp. Br. 6) cited the following from Patent
`
`Owner's Specification:
`
`In yet another embodiment, signals from the Internet 110 side of
`redirection server 208 can be used to modify rule sets being used by
`the redirection server . . . Of course, the type of modification an
`outside server can make to a rule set on the redirection server is not
`limited to deleting a redirection rule, but can include any other type of
`modification to the rule set that is supported by the redirection server
`as discussed above.
`
`'118 Patent, col. 7, 1. 58 - col. 8, 1. 11.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Examiner and Requester take this
`
`citation out of context. App. Br. 15; Reb. Br. 11. Specifically, Patent
`
`Owner contends that the following citation proves that it is the redirection
`
`server that causes the modification, not the outside server (App. Br. 15):
`
`" ... the web site then sends an authorization to the redirection that
`deletes the redirection to the questionnaire web site from the rule set
`for the user who successfully completed the questionnaire."
`'118 Patent, col. 8, 1. 3-6.
`
`We disagree with Patent Owner. While we agree that the portion
`
`cited by Patent Owner contemplates the redirection server deleting a portion
`
`of the rule set, this citation does not refute the Examiner's citation that an
`
`outside server can also modify the rule set.
`
`6
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 21 of 1980
`
`

`

`Appeal2014-007780
`Reexamination Control Nos. 95/002,035
`and 90/012,342 (merged)
`Patent 6,779,118 Bl
`
`Patent Owner also argues that it would be impossible for the rule set
`
`to change without the redirection server being involved in the process. App.
`
`Br. 15; Reb. Br. 11. While we agree that the redirection server is present
`
`during the process, there is nothing in the Specification, or the claims, that
`
`require the redirection server to be actively involved in the process.
`
`Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
`
`Patent Owner's Specification, we find no error in the Examiner's
`
`interpretation. There is nothing in Patent Owner's Specification or the
`
`claims, themselves, that persuasively indicate that the redirection server
`
`must be the component that performs the modification. Instead, as indicated
`
`by the Examiner (Ans. 11 ), the claim only requires that the redirection server
`
`"allow" the modification. Thus, we see no error in the Examiner's
`
`interpretation that something other than the redirection server can perform
`
`the modification to the rule set.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner argues that Radia fails to teach
`
`modification and instead teaches removing and replacing a rule set. App.
`
`Br. 13; Reb. Br. 11. For instance, Patent Owner contends that when a filter
`
`has outlived its usefulness a new filter is created and the new filter is
`
`configured in the router. App. Br. 16. Again, we disagree with Patent
`
`Owner's position.
`
`The Examiner finds, and Requester agrees, that Radia teaches a
`
`system wherein a router receives instructions to modify filtering rules by
`
`reconfiguring the router. Ans. 11 ( citing Radia, col. 6, 1. 66-col. 7, 1. 8).
`
`Thus, we agree that the router is not just configured, but reconfigured.
`
`Therefore, we do not find Patent Owner's arguments to be persuasive.
`
`7
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 22 of 1980
`
`

`

`Appeal2014-007780
`Reexamination Control Nos. 95/002,035
`and 90/012,342 (merged)
`Patent 6,779,118 Bl
`
`Claims 24, 26, 40-43, and 83-90
`
`Patent Owner argues that even if the Examiner's interpretation of the
`
`limitation listed above was correct, that interpretation would only apply to
`
`those claims. App. Br. 14. Patent Owner contends that claims 24, 26, 40-
`
`43, and 83-90 recite a different limitation that would, in fact. require the
`
`redirection server to perform the modification step and the combination of
`
`references fails to teach that limitation. Id. We disagree.
`
`Claim 24 recites "instructions to the redirection server to modify the
`
`rule set are received by ... the redirection server," and claim 83 recites
`
`"receiving instructions by the redirection server to modify at least a portion
`
`of the user's rule set." Claims 26 and 40-43 are dependent upon cancelled
`
`independent claim 25 which, before cancelled, recited similar language to
`claim 83. 2 The Examiner interprets (Ans. 10-11), and the Requester agrees
`
`(3PR Resp. Br. 6-7), that these claims only require the redirection server
`
`receive the instructions to modify the rule set and do not necessarily require
`
`the redirection server to perform the modification. We are not persuasively
`
`pointed to error with the Examiner's position, as there is nothing in the
`
`claim that indicates the redirection server must perform the actual
`
`modification to the rule set.
`
`Additionally, the Examiner finds that, even if the claims are
`
`interpreted as Patent Owner contends they should be, the references read on
`
`the claims. Ans. 11. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Radia teaches a
`
`2 In the event of further prosecution, we recommend the Examiner and
`Patent Owner address the cancellation of independent claim 25 and its non(cid:173)
`cancelled dependent claims.
`
`8
`
`Panasonic-1014
`Page 23 of 1980
`
`

`

`Appeal2014-007780
`Reexamination Control Nos. 95/002,035
`and 90/012,342 (merged)
`Patent 6,779,118 Bl
`
`system wherein an ANCS sends instructions to a router to modify its
`
`filtering rules. Id. The Examiner finds that when the router and ANCS are
`
`combined to form the redirection server, the combination meets Patent
`
`Owner's interpretation of the disputed claim limitations. Id.
`
`Patent Owner argues that it would not make sense to combine the
`
`router and the ANCS ofRadia into one because each of these components
`
`has its own separate and distinct functionality. App. Br. 15-16; Reb. Br. 13.
`
`However, we agree with Requester that Radia teaches combining the ANCS
`
`with SMS 114 and, thereby, contemplates the combination of multiple
`
`components regardless of their functionality. 3PR Resp. Br. 9. As such, we
`
`also agree with Requester that it would have been obvious to combine other
`
`components within Radia's system, as the combination is nothing more than
`a design choice. 3
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner argues that while Radia teaches that the
`
`router can be a combination of components, Radia teaches that each of the
`
`combined components must forward packets. Reb. Br. 12. Thus, Patent
`
`Owner is arguing essentially that Radia teaches away from the combination
`
`of components proposed by Requester. However, we are not pointed to, and
`
`do not find in our review, sufficient evidence in the reference that only
`
`allows the combination of components to be combined if they are able to
`
`forward packets. Teaching an alternative or equivalent method does not
`
`3 Making elements of a device integral or separable is considered to be an
`obvious design choice and does not render an invention patentable. See In re
`Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523
`(CCPA 1961).
`