Case 2:08-cv-00264-DF-CE Document 492
`
`Filed 06/30/10 Page 18 of 23
`
`user action may prompt an automatic modification. As such, the court adopts the following
`
`construction: “a change by the system without a request or instruction to change from a user.”
`
`K.
`
`“location the user access”
`
`Claim 15 contains the term “location the user access”: “wherein the redirection serveris
`
`configured to allow modification of at least a portion of the rule set as a function of some
`
`combinationof time, data transmitted to or from the user, or location the user access.” This claim
`
`term is grammatically incorrect and may have a word missing. Thespecification explains that “a
`
`user maybe periodically redirected to a location, based on the numberofother factors, such as the
`
`numberoflocations accessed,the time spentat a location,the types of locations accessed, and other
`
`such factors.” (‘118 patent, 7:48-52). Linksmart argues that this term means“locationor locations
`
`that the user accesses.” The defendantsallege that “location the user access”is indefinite.
`
`The defendants assert that “location the user access” is ambiguous becauseit is susceptible
`
`to more than one meaning. According to the defendants,this term may mean “location that the user
`
`accesses,”“location the user attempts to access,” “location from whichthe useraccesses,” “location
`2? 66
`
`the user is allowed to access,”
`
`“numberoflocations the user accessed,” and “types oflocations the
`
`user accessed.” During reexamination, Linksmart filed an amendment to claim 15 that read,
`
`“location the user attempts to access.” (Dkt. No. 414, Ex. 2, at 29).
`
`In addition, whenaccusing
`
`Cisco of infringement, Linksmart asserted that the term means “the locationfrom which the user
`
`accesses the Accused Instrumentality.” (Dkt. No. 414, Ex. 2, at 53).
`
`A district court cannot correct errors in a patent if the proposed correction is subject to
`
`reasonable debate. Novo Indus., 350 F.3d at 1357. In Novo Industries, the disputed claim term was
`
`“stop means formed on a rotatable with said support finger.” Jd. at 1352. Theplaintiff argued that
`
`18
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 501 of 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 501 of 1492
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00264-DF-CE Document 492
`
`Filed 06/30/10 Page 19 of 23
`
`this term contained an obvious typographical error and proposed two different corrections: “stop
`
`means on said support finger” and “stop means formed onarotatable support finger.” Jd. The
`
`Federal Circuit held that the error was not amenableto correction by the court, partly because the
`
`plaintiff itself suggested two different corrections, and thus the proposed correction was subject to
`
`reasonable debate. Jd. at 1357. Likewise, in this case, “location the user access” has an obvious
`
`typographical or grammatical error, and the correction is subject to reasonable debate. Linksmart
`
`has suggested one correction to this court, offered a different correction to the PTO, and asserted yet
`
`another theory to Cisco.’ Therefore, the term “location the user access”is insolubly ambiguous.
`
`Assuch, claim 15 is indefinite.
`
`L.
`
`“modifying at least a portion of the user’s rule set while the user’s rule set
`remains correlated to the temporarily assigned network address”
`
`The term “modifying at least a portion ofthe user’s rule set while the user’s rule set remains
`
`correlated to the temporarily assigned network address”is found in claim 25. Theplaintiff argues
`
`that no construction of this term is necessary in light of other constructions. Alternatively,
`
`Linksmart proposesthe following construction:“changing at least one ofthe elements or conditions
`
`about the user’s session during the session.” The defendants contend that “modifying at least a
`
`portion ofthe user's rule set while the user’s rule set remainscorrelated to the temporarily assigned
`
`network address” means“changingatleast oneofthe rules in the user’s rule set without ending the
`
`authorized session.”
`
`The primary difference betweenthe parties’ proposed constructions is whether termination
`
`
`Linksmart argues that its infringement contentions against Ciscoare irrelevant for
`purposesof claim construction becausetheyare litigation-related documents. But in Novo
`Industries, the Federal Circuit considered litigation-related positions in holding that the proposed
`correction was subject to reasonable debate. See id. (“Indeed, Novo itself suggested two
`different constructionsto the district court... .”).
`
`19
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 502 of 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 502 of 1492
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00264-DF-CE Document 492
`
`Filed 06/30/10 Page 20 of 23
`
`of the user’s session, which may be a form of a rule change, is covered by the patent term.
`
`According to the defendants, when the user’s sessionis terminated, the system breaksthe correlation
`
`between the user’srule set and the temporarily assigned network address. (See ‘118 patent, 3:21-26
`(“When the user terminates the connection with the network, ... the authentication accounting
`
`server .
`
`.
`
`. sends a messageto the redirection servertelling it to remove any remainingfiltering and
`
`redirection information for the terminated user’s temporary IP address.”); 4:67-5:4 (“When the
`
`redirection server[] receives information regarding a terminated session. .
`
`.
`
`, the redirection server
`
`[] removes any outstandingrule sets and information associated with the session.”)). But Linksmart
`
`argues that these quoted passages from the specification are preferred embodiments, and the claim
`
`should not be construed to exclude modifications that terminate the session.
`
`The court is persuaded by Linksmart’s argument. The system mayfirst terminate the user’s
`
`session,then break the correlation between the temporarily assigned network address andthe user’s
`
`rule set. The court therefore construes “modifying at least a portion ofthe user’s rule set while the
`
`user’s rule set remainscorrelated to the temporarily assigned network address”to mean “changing
`
`at least one of the elements or conditionsin the ‘user’s rule set’ during the session.”
`
`M.
`
`“database”
`
`Claim 1 containsthe term “database”:“a database with entries correlating each ofa plurality
`
`of user IDs with an individualized rule set.” The term “database” appears throughout the
`
`specification. The plaintiffasserts that no construction of“database”is necessary. Ifa construction
`
`is required, the plaintiff proposes “a structured set of data held in a computer.” In contrast, BWI
`
`contends that this term means a “relational database that stores data in a collection of records
`
`wherein each record has at least one field commonto other records.”
`
`20
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 503 of 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 503 of 1492
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00264-DF-CE Document 492
`
`Filed 06/30/10 Page 21 of 23
`
`BWI arguesthat “database” must be construedasa relational database.
`
`In support ofits
`
`proposed construction, BWI quotesthe following language from the specification: “The database
`
`206is a relational database whichstores the system data.” (‘118 patent, 4:33-34) (emphasis added).
`
`BWI contends that this language doesnot state that the database could be or may bearelational
`
`database; instead, it says that the database is a relational database. But the quoted sentence is
`
`located within the “Detailed Description of the Invention”; this section begins with “[i]n the
`
`following embodimentsofthe invention.” (‘118 patent, 3:45). Figure 2 andthe “database 206,”
`
`discussed in the Detailed Description,illustrate embodiments of the claimed invention. Although
`
`relational databasesare a preferred embodiment, nothingin the claimsor specification exclude other
`
`forms of data storage, such asaflat file. Therefore, the court construes “database” to mean “a
`
`structured set of data held in a computer.”
`
`N.
`
`“entries”
`
`Claim 1 contains the term “entries”: “a database with entries correlating each of a plurality
`
`of user IDs with an individualizedrule set.” The specification states that “[t]he present invention
`
`allowsfor creating and implementing dynamically changingrules,to allow the redirection, blocking,
`
`or allowing, of specific data traffic for specific users, as a function ofdatabase entries and the user’s
`
`activity.” Linksmart states that no construction is necessary, or alternatively, proposes “records in
`
`a database.” BWI asserts the following construction: “records in a database, each record including
`
`a user ID and a uniquerule set individualized for the user ID.”
`
`According to BWI, the rule set must be unique and individualized for each user ID. But
`
`claim 7, which dependsfrom claim 1, explains thatthe entries correlate a plurality ofusers’ [Ds with
`
`a common individualized rule set. As such, the term “entries” does not require the entries to
`
`21
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 504 of 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 504 of 1492
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00264-DF-CE Document 492
`
`Filed 06/30/10 Page 22 of 23
`
`correlate a unique rule set to each user ID.’ BWI alsoasserts that each record mustinclude a user
`
`ID and a rule set. BWI relies on a portion ofthe specification that illustrates a record containing a
`
`user ID and rule set.
`
`(‘118 patent, 6:11-22). This portion of the specification describes an
`
`embodiment, however. The claim languagestates that the entries correlate, not include, the user
`
`IDsand rule sets. Nothing in the patent excludes a database with user IDs and rulesets stored in
`
`separate tables. Finally, the remainder ofBWI’s construction merely restates whatis required in the
`
`claim language-thecorrelation of user IDs with rule sets. As such, the court construes“entries”to
`
`mean “records in a database.”
`
`VI.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The court adopts the constructionsset forth in this opinion for the disputed termsofthe ‘118
`
`patent. Theparties are orderedthat they maynotrefer, directly or indirectly, to each other’s claim
`
`construction positionsin the presenceofthe jury. Likewise, the parties are orderedto refrain from
`
`mentioning anyportion ofthis opinion,other than the actual definitions adoptedbythe court,in the
`
`presence of the jury. Any reference to claim construction proceedingsis limited to informing the
`
`jury of the definitions adopted by the court.
`
` 2
`
`At the May 25, 2010 claim construction hearing, counsel for BWI appeared to argue that
`the court should not consider claim 7 when construing “entries” because “claim 7 hasn’t been
`asserted in this lawsuit.” A person of ordinary skill reading the ‘118 patent woulddiscern,
`however,that claim 7 is intrinsic evidence regardless of whether Linksmart would later decline
`to assert that claim. See also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“Other claims of the patentin question,
`both asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of enlightenmentas to the meaning of
`a claim term.”).
`
`22
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 505 of 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 505 of 1492
`
`

`

`Case 2:08-cv-00264-DF-CE Document 492
`
`Filed 06/30/10 Page 23 of 23
`
`SIGNEDthis 30th day of June, 2010.
`
` CHARLES EVERINGHAMILV
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`23
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 506 of 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 506 of 1492
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT C
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 507 of 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 507 of 1492
`
`

`

`Koichiro Ikudome, ¢¢ al.
`Applicant
`09/295,966
`‘Application No.
`Filed
`April.21, 1999
`Title
`USER.SPECIFIC AUTOMATIC
`REDIRECTION SYSTEM
`3621
`Pierre E. Elisca
`34503/WWM/A522
`
`:
`
`Grp./Div,
`Examiner
`Docket No.
`
`DATA
`
`Ae
`
`
`
`
`
`Ni
`
`APPELLANT'S BRIEF
`
`Assistant Commissioner for Patents
`Washington, D.C. 20231
`
`Commissioner:
`
`Post Office Box 7068
`Pasadena, CA 91109-7068
`November 22, 2002
`
`This is an appeal from the Final Rejection, dated October 12,:2001, ofthe claims in the
`
`above-referenced application.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`8
`
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`
`The real party in interost is the asaignoe of the aubject application, Auric Web Systems.
`RELATED APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
`There are no yelated appealsor interferences.
`STATUS OF CLAIMS
`
`Claims 1-29. are pending in the present application.
`
`Claims 1-29 have been rejected in a final rejection, dated October 12, 2001 under 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`ie/g4/200e CUBLIL©Odd0GIAS 05295966
`140.0060
`
`OL FCs2402
`
`Panasoni§-1009
`Page 508:
`1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 508 of 1492
`
`

`

`
`
`Application No. 09/295,966
`
`The claims on appeal are claims 1-29,
`
`4,
`
`STATUS OF AMENDMENTS
`
`Appellants submitted additional remarks in a response to the final rejection:|This
`response did not amend any claims. The response was not deemed to overcometherejections.
`See, Paper 14, dated October 22, 2002. There are no outstanding, unentered amendments.
`5.
`SUMMARY OF INVENTION
`.
`The invention is an improved databasesystem and method for redirecting and filtering
`Internet traffic. Appellants’ Specification (hereinafter “Specification’), 1:10-11 (passages are
`indicated by page:line). One embodimentof the invention relates to a system and method
`including a database 206! with entries correlating each of a plurality of user IDs with an
`individualized rule set. A dial-up network server 102 receives user IDs from users’ computers
`100, and a redirection server 208 ia connected to the dial-up network server 102 and a public
`network 110.. An authentication accounting server 204 is connected to the database 206, the
`dial-up network server 102 and the redirection server 208. The dial-up network server 102
`
`
`
`communicates a firat user ID for one of the users’ computers 100 and temporarily assigned
`network address for the first user ID to the authentication accounting server 204. The
`authentication. accounting server 204 accesses the database 206 and communicates the
`individualized rule set that correlates with the first user ID and the temporarily assigned
`network address to the redirection server 208.
`Specification, 4:8-13. Data directed toward
`the public network 110 from one of the users’ computers 100 are processed by the redirection
`server 208 according the individualized rule eet. Specification, 8:80-4:7.
`One embodiment of the invention also redirects the data to and from the users’ .
`computers as a function of the individualized rule set. Specification, 3:26-28.
`In another.
`embodiment, at least a portion of the rule set for a temporarily assigned network address is
`automatically modified or at least-a portion of the rule set is modified while that rule set
`remains correlated to the temporarily assigned network address, Specification, 3:28-80.
`
`‘All numerals refer to FIG, 2,
`
`“Page 500 Mf 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 509 of 1492
`
`

`

`Application No, 09/295,966
`
`6
`
`ISSUES
`() Whetherclaims 1-29 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102()) over Horowitz,et al.
`(WO. 96/05549).
`7.
`GROUPING OF CLAIMS
`
`For purposes ofthis appeal, the claims are grouped as follows andfor the purposesofthis
`appealonly, the claims within each group stand andfall together. The claims:consistof four
`independentclaims, claims1, 8, 15, and 26. Claims 1 and 15 claim systems and claims 8 and
`26 claim methods correspondingto those systema. For determining anticipation within the
`meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the groups are:
`Group I - 1-4, 7-11, 14
`
`redirection server according to the individualized rule set.
`
`Independent claim 1 recites a system
`Group I includes claims 1-4, 7-11 and 14:
`comprising a database with entries correlating each of a plurality of user IDs with an
`individualized rule set; a dial-up network server that receives user [De from users’ computers;
`a redirection server connected to the dial-up network server and a public network; and an
`authentication accounting server connected to the database, the dial-up network server.and
`the redirection server, wherein the dial-up network server communicates a first user ID for
`one of the users’ computers and a tamporarily assigned network address for the first user ID
`to the authentication accounting server, wherein the authentication accounting server accesses
`the database and communicates the individualized rule set that corralates with the first user
`ID and the temporarily assigned network address tothe redirection server, and wherein data -
`directed toward the public network from the one of the users’ computers are processed by the
`
`Group II - 5-6, 12-13
`
`Group ITI- 15-29
`8 ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`GROUP I
`
`Page 510 Of 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 510 of 1492
`
`

`

`
`
`Application No. 09/295,966
`
`The Examiner has rejected independent claim 1 under 385 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
`anticipated by Horowitz. Horowitz is directed to a local network® remote access server.
`Horowitz, Abstract. Remote users, such as telecommuters, can dial directly into a remote
`access server® that checks the remote users’ IDs and passwords against a database. Horowitz,
`3:15-28. The database also includes pre-programed accessfilters indicating to which of the
`known devices connected to the local network (¢.g., other computers, printers, etc.) the user
`can have access. Horowitz,-3:32-4:5. The remote access server can then allow or block the
`
`user from access to a particular device.
`Similar packetfiltering is discussed in the Appellants’ background section. Specifically, |
`
`“packet filtering is very limited because it is static. Once packet filtering rule sets are
`
`programed into a firewall or other packet filter device, the rule set can only be changed by
`manually reprogrammingthe device.” Specification, 2:30-34. However, this disadvantage can
`be largely irrelevant on a local network because the devices and networks* on which the access
`filters are based are relatively static and known by the network administrator. Horowitz
`teaches that the database is “maintained ya network manager who has central control of and
`responsibility for the network 14 and the maintenance thereof.” Horowitz, 8:31-9:2, Such
`control over a constantly changing public network, such as the Internet, is ‘notfeasible.
`A single prior art reference will anticipate a claim only ifit expressly or inherently
`describes each and every limitation in the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814
`F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Horowitz neither expressly nor inherently discloses every
`limitation ofclaim.1. Specifically, Horowitz does not disclose the claim element, “wherein data
`directed toward the public network from the one ofthe users’ computers are processed by the
`redirection server according to the individualizedrule set.” The entirety of the Examiner's.
`grounds for rejection with respect to this elementis that the elementis “disclosed by Horowitz,
`in the abstract, specifically wherein it is stated that. the server also includes processing
`
`*See, e.g., Horowitz, Abstract, 1:5-10 and 3:1-7.
`
`§See. Horowitz, 4:6-23.
`
`“See Horowitz; 3:29-4:65.
`
`Page 511 Of 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 511 of 1492
`
`

`

`Application No, 09/295,966
`
`electronics which control the communication and network ports.” See Final Office Action,p.
`3. In an advisory action,® the Examineressentially repeated this ground stating:
`
`.5-
`
`Applicant's representative argues that Horowitz does not [disclose] any about. ‘a
`system that control a user's access to a public network’...However, the Examiner
`-respectfully disagrees because Horowitz. in the Abstract, specifically wherein it is
`stated that processing [electronics] which control the communication...see office
`action mailed on 10/12/2001.
`
`For a finding of anticipation, “the identical invention must-be shown in as.complete detail as
`is contained in the ...claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Ted. Cir.
`1989). However, nothingin the reference’s passage from the Abstractcitedby the Examiner
`discloses any data directed to a public network.
`Although not explicitly stated, the Examiner appears to be making an assuniption that
`“communication and network ports” inherently direct data to a public network. First,
`Horowiiz fails to inherently anticipate the claimed element. “Inherent anticipation requires
`that the missing descriptive material is ‘necessarily present,’ not merely probably or possibly
`present, in the prior art.” Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1295 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002).. While it is true that it is possible to use “communication and network ports” to
`direct data to a public network, “communication and network ports” are often used in systems
`without directing data to a public network. For éxample, two stand alone computersdirectly
`connected over a telephone line with modems or two computers connected to each other ina
`simple LAN have “communication and network ports” controlledby processingelectronics, but
`do not direct data towarda public network. Appellants therefore submit that the missing
`description of: “directing data toward a public network”falls far short of being “necessarily .
`present” in Horowitz, as is required by Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top-U.S.A, Corp.
`Second, the ‘specific “communication and natwork ports” disclosed in Horowitz do not
`expressly teach or suggest anything about. public networks or directing data to a public
`network. The “communication and network ports” in the Horowitz abstract cannot be read in
`
`5See, Paper No. 14, sent November 8, 2002.
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 512 of 1492
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Application No. 09/295,966
`
`a vacuum. They must be read in the context of the Horowitz disclosure.
`
`Horowitz that, discusses these ports is as follows:
`
`Referring now to FIG: 4, in one embodiment, the remote access server 16 includes
`electronics 38, a plurality of serial communication ports 40,-40,, and a plurality of
`network ports 42,-42.. The server 16 also can include a plurality of internal modems
`44,-44y. The serial ports 40:and the network ports 42 are controlled by the electronics
`38.
`
`The electronics 38 include, in some embodiments, a powerful 16 MHz-68EC020
`microprocessor and memory such as up to 1 megabyte of battery backed-up static
`random access memory (SRAM) and possible #4 kilobytes in an erasable programmable
`read only memory (EPROM).
`Each of the serial communication ports 40 is for coupling with a‘communication
`device (e.g., the modem 26 of FIG. 1), or for coupling directly with the telephone lines
`22, to provide for communication with a remote computer(e.g., the remote computer 12
`ofFIGS 1 and 2) over the telephonelines 22. A connecting cable canbe used to couple +
`a serial port 40 with the communication device or with the telephone lines.. Each of the
`serial ports 40 can. simultaneously be coupled to a different one of the plurality of
`remote computers so as to provide simultaneous access to a local computer network for
`each ofthe remote computers, even ifeach ofthe remote computers employs a different
`protocol (e.g., IPX, TCPAP, AppleTalk, NetBEUI, or 802.2/LLC)...
`Eachof the network ports 42 is for coupling with a local computer network (e.g., the
`network 14 ofFIGS, 1 and 2), via aconnecting cable,to provide for communication with
`the network...In:some embodiments, the server 16 includes three network ports 42, one
`for 10BaseT Ethernet, one for Thin Ethernet, and one for Thick Ethérnet..
`In some
`othar embodiments, the server 16 includés a‘single network port. 42 for Token Ring.
`In some other embodiments, the server. 16 includes a single network: port 42 for use
`with Apple LocalTalk,
`
`The entirety of
`
`Horowitz, 16:24-17:14, 17:24-18:1 (emphasis added). As indicated in the emphasized portion
`of this disclosure, the “communications ports” provide communication with remote computers
`used to remotely access the weatwork that includes the communication ports, not a public
`network. Similarly, the “network-ports” are coupled'to.a local computer network, nota public
`network. Nowhere in this discussionis there any. teaching or suggestion of a public network .
`or the “communication andnetwork ports” being connected‘to ona, and, in fact, the entire
`disclosure is expressly directed to only a private network.
`
`Page 513 @f 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 513 of 1492
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Application No. 09/295,966
`
`As discussed above, the differences betweenpublic and private networks are important.
`In private networks, such as in Horowitz,all ofthe resources and services are known. Private
`“networks are “maintained by a network manager who has central control ofand responsibility
`for the network 14 and the maintenance thereof,” Horowitz, 8:31-9:2. All ofthe resources.and
`services are mown, Additionally, since these networks are “private,” they are not accessible
`to the public.
`Ina public network, the available resources. and services are unknown and
`constantly changing. Horowitz states that an object of its accessfilter is to provide “security
`features” and “restrict access to the network on a per-user basis.” Public networks are not -
`secure and access is unrestricted, Because Horowitz fails to disclose the cited limitations
`either expressly or inherently, Appellants respectfully submit that claim 1 is not anticipated
`by Horowitz.
`,
`Independent claim 8 recites a method that corresponds ‘to the system recited in claim
`1. Appellants respectfully submit thatélaim 8 and its dependent claims9-14 are therefore
`patentable over Horowitz. Appellants respectfully request that the rejections to claims 8-14
`be withdrawn.
`
`For.all of the reasons stated above, Appellants respectfully submitthat claim 1, its
`dependent claims2-7, claim 8.andits dependent claims 9-14 are patentable over Horowitz and
`respectfully request that: the rejection under §102 be withdrawn.
`
`B.
`GROUPIL.
`Group II includesclaims 5-6 and 12-13. Claims 5-6 and 12-18 recite systems and
`methods that redirect. data to and from the users’ computers via the redirection server as a -
`function ofthe individualized rule set. The passages in Horowilz cited by the Examiner-do not
`teach or suggest. this limitation. Instead, these passages relate to only-blocking or allowing
`access to the private-network, or particular devices on the private network: Horowitz,
`Abstract, 9:20-29. The Appellants can find no teaching or suggestion anywhere in Horowiiz
`of directing the data to or from the user to an alternate location based on the individualized
`rule set and the Examiner has not identified such teaching or suggestion.
`.
`
`Panaso ¢-1009
`Page 514f 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 514 of 1492
`
`

`

`Application No. 09/295,966
`
`Appellants include an. extensive discussion regarding redirection of data in their
`specification. Specification, 1:29-2:16. Redirection involves the server “directing” the user to
`anotherarea ofthe network. Ifthe user chooses on its own to try to access another, allowable
`area of the network, this is clearly not redirection by the server. Horowitz, therefore, does not
`disclose any server that redirects data, but rather only passivelyblocks or allows data, As this
`limitation is neither expressly or inherently present in Horowitz, Appellants respectfully
`request that the rejections to Group II be withdrawn. Additionally, Appellants submit that
`claims 5-6 and 12-13 are dependent on patentable independent claims 1 and 8, respéctively,
`and should therefore be allowed. The difference between passive blocking and allowing data
`and the redirection in this group ofclaims also makes these claims patentably distinct from
`the claims in Group I, because the claims in Group I would cover passive blocking and allowing
`data.
`
`.B. sae ES
`
`GROUP III.
`Cc,
`Group ITT includes claims 15-29. Independent claim 15 recites a system comprising a
`redirection server programed 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 passing betweenthe user and a public network; and wherein tha redirection serveris
`configured to allow automated modification of at least a portion of the rule set correlated to
`the temporarily assigned network address,
`The Examiner has rejected independent.claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
`anticipated hy [orowitz. As discussedin ralation to Group I, above, Horowitz contains no
`express or inherent teaching or suggestion of a-public network, or a rule set. with functions
`used to control passing between the user and a public network, Appellants therefore
`respectfully submit that claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-25 are allowable and request
`that their rejections be withdrawn.
`Additionally, Horowitz contains no teaching or suégestion of “automated modification
`of at least a portion of the rule set correlated to the temporarily assigned network address.”
`Although Appellant brought the absence ofthis. element to-the Examiner's attention in every
`
`
`
`:
`
`Page 515 bf 1492
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 515 of 1492
`
`

`

`Panaso c-1009
`
`Page 516 bf 1492
`
`Application No, 09/295,966
`
`communication,® the Examinerhasfailed to cite any teaching or suggestion in Horowitz that
`meets this element or respond to Appellants’ argument in any way. Appellant respectfully
`submits that the Examiner has failed to show that claims 15-25 are expressly or inherently
`anticipated by Horowitz, and therefore requests that the rejections to these claims ‘be
`withdrawn. The automated modification elementalso distinguishes the claims of Group [TT
`from the claims of Group I as‘even ifthe claims of Group I were anticipatedby Horowitz, there
`would be no anticipation ofthe Group III claims because Horowitz does not disclose or suggest
`the automated modification element.
`
`Independentclaim 26 recites.a methodthat corresponds generally to the system recited
`in claim 16. Appellants respectfully submit that claim 26:and its dependent claims 27-29 are
`therefore patentable over Horowitz, Specifically, the Examiners has not cited ‘any portion of
`Horwitz as disclosing “modifying at least a portion of the user’s rule set while the user’s rule
`set remains correlated to the temporarily assigned network address.” Appellants respectfully
`request that the rejections to Group IIT be withdrawn.
`;
`
`NCLUSION.
`D.
`A single prior art reference. will anticipate a claim only if it expressly or inherently
`describes each and every limitation in the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814
`F.2d 628, 681 (Fed. Cir. 1987), Regarding Group I, the reference cited by the Examiner in
`support of his 36-U.8.C. §102(b) rejection fails to expressly or inherently teach or suggest
`“wherein data directed toward the public network from the one of the users’ computers are
`processed by the redirection server according to the individualized rule set.” Horowitz,in fact;
`contains no teaching or suggestion of a public networkatall, and is expressly related to only
`a private network. Regarding Group IT, the Examiner has failed to-show any teaching or
`suggestion in Horowitz of “redirection of data to or from a user.” Finally, regarding GroupIIL,
`the Examiner has failed to show any teaching or suggestion in Horowitz of “modification of a
`
`°See, Response to Office Action sent July 30, 2001-p.'7, Pelephone conference ofOctober 10,
`2002, and Response to Office Action sent October 22, 2002'p. 3:
`
`9.
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 516 of 1492
`
`

`

`Application No. 09/296,966
`
`is appropriate.
`
`rule set. correlated toa temporarily assigned network address.” In fact, the Examiner has
`offered no argument. or referencerelatedto this claim element. Accordingly, the Examiner has:
`failed to make out. a prima facie case of anticipation and the issuance of a notice of allowance
`
`-10- Page 517 Bf 1492
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
`
` By.
`
` WesleyV..Monroe
`Reg. No. 39,778
`626/795-9900..
`
`Panasonic-1009
`Page 517 of 1492
`
`

`

`Application No. 09/295,966
`
`9.|APPENDIX OF CLAIMS INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL
`
`The system of claim 1, wherein the redirection.server further provides control
`2.
`over a plurality of data to and from the userg’ coriputers as a function of the individualiced
`rule set.
`
`The system of claim 1, wherein the redirection server further blocks the data
`3.
`to and from the users’ computers as a function of the individualized rule sét,
`
`The system of claim.1, wherein the redirection server further allows the data
`4,
`to and from the users’ computers as a function of the individualized rule set.
`
`
`
`
`
`A-system comprising:
`1.
`a database with entries. corrélating: each of a plurality of user IDs with an
`individualized rule set;
`a dial-up network server that receives user IDs from users' computers;
`a redirection server connected to the dial-up network server and a public notwork, and
`an authentication accounting server connected to.the database, the dial-wp. network
`server and the redirection server:
`wherein the dial-up network server communicates a first user ID-for one of the users’
`computers and a temporarily assigned network address for the first user ID to the
`authentication accounting server;
`wherein the authentication accounting server accesses'the database and communicates
`the individualized rule set that correlates with the first user ID and the temporarily assigned
`network address to the redirection server; and.
`-
`wherein data directed toward the public netwo