•
`
`•
`
`Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116
`Expedited Procedure - Art Unit 2683
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re application of:
`
`Jacob JORGENSEN
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,975
`
`Examiner: Lee Nguyen
`
`Filed: July 9, 1999
`
`Atty. Docket No. 36792-162252
`
`For: METHOD FOR THE
`RECOGNITION AND
`OPERATION OF VIRTUAL
`PRIVATE NETWORKS (VPNs)
`OVER A WIRELESS POINT TO
`MULTI·POINT (PtMP)
`TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
`
`Customer
`
`I
`26694
`
`PATENT TllADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Reply Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116
`
`Altention: Box AF
`
`Honorable Commissioner for Patents
`Washington, D.C. 20231
`
`Sir:
`
`In reply to the Final Office Action dated September 6, 2002, Applicants submit the
`
`following Amendment and Reply.
`
`It is not believed that extensions of time or fees for net addition of claims are required
`
`beyond those that may otherwise be provided for in documents accompanying this paper.
`
`However, if additional extensions of time are needed to prevent abandonment of this application,
`
`then such extensions of time are hereby petitioned under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a), and any fees
`
`
`
`•
`
`Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116
`Expedited Procedure - Art Unit 2683
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re application of:
`
`Jacob JORGENSEN
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`Appl. No. 09/349,975
`
`Examiner: Lee Nguyen
`
`Filed: July 9, 1999
`
`Atty. Docket No. 36792-162252
`
`For: METHOD FOR THE
`RECOGNITION AND
`OPERATION OF VIRTUAL
`PRIVATE NETWORKS (VPNs)
`OVER A WIRELESS POINT TO
`MULTI·POINT (PtMP)
`TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
`
`Customer
`
`I
`26694
`
`PATENT TllADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Reply Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116
`
`Altention: Box AF
`
`Honorable Commissioner for Patents
`Washington, D.C. 20231
`
`Sir:
`
`In reply to the Final Office Action dated September 6, 2002, Applicants submit the
`
`following Amendment and Reply.
`
`It is not believed that extensions of time or fees for net addition of claims are required
`
`beyond those that may otherwise be provided for in documents accompanying this paper.
`
`However, if additional extensions of time are needed to prevent abandonment of this application,
`
`then such extensions of time are hereby petitioned under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a), and any fees
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`Appl. No. 09/349,975
`
`required therefor (including fees for net addition of claims), and any other fee deficiency arc
`
`hereby authorized to be charged, any overpayments credited, to our Deposit Account No. 22-
`
`0261.
`
`Kindly entcr the following Reply.
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Remarks
`
`Upon entry of reply, claims I - 19 are pending in the application, with claims I, 7. and 15
`
`being the independent claims.
`
`Based on the following Remarks, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner
`
`reconsider all outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Point 2 of the Office Action
`
`In point 2 of the Action, the Examiner canceled Claim 2. Since the Applicant did not
`
`cancel Claim 2, and the Examiner is not penmitted to cancel Claim 2 (MPEP § 1302.04),
`
`Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner correct this typographical error and restore
`
`Claim 2 of the patent application.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.c. §l03
`
`In point 4 of the Office Action, the Examiner rejected Claims 1 and 3-19 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ I 03(a) as being unpatentable over Buchholz et al. ( U.S. Patent No. 5,493,569 hereafter
`
`DC2J40762 1vl
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`AppL No. 09/349,975
`
`" Buchholz") in view of Chase et aL (U.S. Patent No. 6,188,671 hereafter "Chase"). This
`
`rejection is respectfully traversed.
`
`1.
`
`Chase fails to teach packet-centric wireless pOint to multipOint communication
`system using a packet centricpr%co/.
`
`As claimed, for a network protocol to be packet-centric, the protocol can not be circu;l-
`
`centric. As clearly defined in the specification, a packet-centric protocol "does not use dedicated
`
`circuits through which to transfer packets." Specification, page 57, lines 8-9. In a packet-centric
`
`protocol according to the present invention, when a large file is sent down the protocol stack,
`
`"segmentation and packetization of the data" occurs, and then "a header is placed on the packet
`
`for delivery to the data link." Page 57, lines 11-12. A circuit-centric protocol and/or network
`
`such as, e.g., an asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) protocol network of Chase is different from
`
`a packet-centric protocol network, in that the circuit-centric network assigns circuits for the A TM
`
`network. Unlike the circuit-centric ATM protocol, the packet-centric protocol does "not
`
`specifically route" the packets across a "specific channel." Page 57. lines 14-15. Instead, the
`
`packet-centric protocol places a header on the packet and lets the network deal with routing the
`
`packets. Page 57, lines 15-16. "Therefore, the outbound packets can take various routes to get
`
`from a source to a destination. This means that the packets are in a datagram form and not
`
`sequentially numbered as they are in other protocols." Page 57. lines 16-18.
`
`Where the specification provides definitions for claim terms, the specification may be
`
`0C2.i407621vl
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`Appl. No. 09/349,975
`
`used in interpreting claim language. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 , 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCrA
`
`1970). Here, the definition of a packet-centric protocol is provided in the specification. page 57,
`
`for example. and should be given proper weight in interpreting the term. Claims are not to be
`
`read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of specification. In re
`
`Marosi, 710 F.2d at 802, 218 USPQ at 292 (quoting In re Okuzaw!!, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190
`
`USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
`
`Here, reading claim I in light of the specification, the claimed packet-centric protocol
`
`should be reasonably interpreted to mean a protocol in which "segmentation and packetization of
`
`the data" occurs, and then "a header is placed on the packet for delivery to the data link", where
`
`"the packets are in a datagram form and not sequentially numbered." Page 57, lines 11 -12 and
`
`16- 18. As defined in the specification, the packet-centric protocol is not circuu-centric. Thus,
`
`the term packet centric should be reasonably interpreted to mean that the packet-centric protocol
`
`is not a protocol that sets up "virtual circuits between source and destination nodes ... by
`
`dedicating the virtual circuit to a specific traffic type" such as ATM. Specification at page 57,
`
`lines 4-9. Applicant's claimed invention requires use of a packet-centric protocol over a wireless
`
`link. Chase sets forth an A TM circuit-centric type network which further does not contemplate a
`
`wireless link. Instead, Chase contemplates a fast packet network. A fast packet network is
`
`defined as a network whose link error rate is so low as to not require error checking. The
`
`wireless link (an inherently unreliable link) of the claimed invention is anything but a reliable
`
`link. fast packet network.
`
`OC2J407621vl
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`App!. No. 09/349,975
`
`2.
`
`Improper Combination oj References
`
`The Examiner has not shown a proper motivation to combine the references, and thus has
`
`not proven the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner is combining the
`
`references in hindsight, using Applicant' s Specification as a roadmap. It is improper to combine
`
`the references without showing a proper motivation to combine the references.
`
`As noted recently by the Federal Circuit in In Re Sang- Su Lee, (Fed. Cir. 2002), it is
`
`fundamental that rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 must be based on evidence comprehended by
`
`the language of that section (quoting In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1983». The essential factual evidence on the issue of obviousness is set forth in
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966) and extensive ensuing
`
`precedent. The patent examination process centers on prior art and the analysis thereof. When
`
`patentability turns on the question of obviousness, the search for and analysis of the prior art
`
`includes evidence relevant to the finding of whether there is a teaching, motivation, or suggestion
`
`to select and combine the references relied on as evidence of obviousness. See,~, McGinley v.
`
`Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351-52,60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2001) stating
`
`that "the central question is whether there is reason to combine [the] references," a question of
`
`fact drawing on the Graham factors. "The factual inquiry whether to combine references must be
`
`thorough and searching." Jd. It must be based on objective evidence of record. This precedent
`
`has been reinforced in myriad decisions, and cannot be dispensed with. See, ~, Brown &
`
`DCl/407621vl
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`AppJ. No. 09/349,975
`
`Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1124-25,56 USPQ2d 1456,
`
`1459 (Fed. Cir. 2000) that required "a showing of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to
`
`combine the prior art references is an 'essential component ofan obviousness holding'" (quoting
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc., v. M3 Systems, Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1352, 48 USPQ2d 1225, 1232 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998». In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999) states
`
`that" . . . case law makes clear that the best defense against the subtle but powerful attraction of a
`
`hindsight-based obviousness analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing of
`
`the teaching or motivation to combine prior art references." In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343,
`
`48 USPQ2d 1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1998) requires that there must be some motivation,
`
`suggestion, or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was made by
`
`the applicant. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075,5 USPQ2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988) set forth
`
`that "'teachings of references can be combined only if there is some suggestion or incentive to do
`
`so.'" (emphasis in original) (quoting ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572,
`
`1577,221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984». The need for specificity pervades this authority.
`
`See,~, In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371 , 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) stating
`
`that "particular findings must be made as to the reason the skilled artisan. with no knowledge of
`
`the claimed invention, would have selected these components for combination in the manner
`
`claimed"; In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1359,47 USPQ2d 1453, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998) stating
`
`that "even when the level of skill in the art is high, the Board must identify specifically the
`
`principle, known to one of ordinary skill, that suggests the claimed combination. In other words,
`
`DC21407621 vI
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`Appl. No. 09/349,975
`
`the Board must explain the reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`select the references and to combine them to render the claimed invention obvious"; In re Fritch,
`
`972 F.2d 1260, 1265, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992) states that the examiner can
`
`satisfy the burden of showing obviousness of the combination "only by showing some objective
`
`teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would lead that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references."
`
`With respect to this application, the Examiner has not adequately supported the selection
`
`and combination of the Buchholz and Chase references to render obvious that which Applicant
`
`has claimed. The Examiner's conclusory statements that "[it] would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the prioritization of Chase
`
`to the system of Buchholz in order to provide users with service selections," do not adequately
`
`provide a proper motivation to combine. Buchholz and Chase are directed to two different fields
`
`of endeavor, the former to wireless voice communication and the latter to wired data
`
`communication. The fields are orthogonal to one another. Technologies that apply to one, do
`
`not apply to the other. The Buchholz patent relates to the field of early analog cellular telephone
`
`time division multiple access (TDMA) voice communications. Chase on the other hand, relates
`
`to the field of asynchronous transfer mode (ATM)/ frame relay (FR) data communications. A
`
`network engineer or developer in the fonner field would not have worked in the latter field, and
`
`vice versa, and further would not have had access to the document from the other field without a
`
`teaching or motivation to combine as provided by Applicant' s invention. The Examiner is
`
`DC2I407621vl
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`Appl. No. 09/349,975
`
`improperly using Applicant's Specification in hindsight as motivation. This factual question of
`
`motivation is material to patentability, and can not be resolved on subjective belief and unknown
`
`authority. See In re Sang-Sil Lee (Fed. Cir. 2002). It is improper, in determining whether a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have been led to this combination of references, simply to «[use]
`
`that which the inventor taught against its teacher." W.L. Gore v. Garlock. Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
`
`1553 ,220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In effect, the Examiner is using Applicant's
`
`Specification as a blueprint in hindsight to allegedly render Applicant's claimed invention
`
`obvious.
`
`Chase teaches a frame relay (FR) and an asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) network
`
`architectures for transmitting data in ATM cells using a circuit-centric permanent virtual circuit
`
`(pYC) or a switched virtual circuit (SYC) in a wired network environment. Nowhere in the
`
`specification of Chase is a wireless environment discussed. Nowhere in Figs. 1-14 of Chase is a
`
`wireless network depicted. Buchholz teaches TDMA wireless transmission of data in a wireless
`
`local area network. Further, Buchholz has nothing to do with virtual private networks (YPNs).
`
`No where in Buchholz is a YPN discussed. A YPN does not appear in any of the figures of
`
`Buchholz. Further, as noted above, Buchholz presumes a TDMA wireless environment, while
`
`Chase presupposes an ATM or FR wired environment. Nowhere has the Examiner shown any
`
`motivation to combine the references as is mandated by the patent law. The Examiner has
`
`improperly failed to show any motivation to combine the references to allegedly reach the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`DC2I407621vl
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`App!. No. 09/349,975
`
`3.
`
`The Combination of Buchholz and Chase is Inoperative
`
`Further, Applicant respectfully asserts that the combination is also improper because the
`
`combination is inoperative. Claim I recites subscriber workstations in communication with a
`
`subscriber customer premise equipment (CPE) stations, which in tum is in wireless
`
`communication with a wireless base station over a shared wireless bandwidth, and further recites
`
`a prioritization means for prioritizing an IP flow over the shared wireless bandwidth in
`
`comparison to other IP flows based on priorities of a virtual private network (VPN) associated
`
`with said IP flow. This feature is illustrated in Fig. 158. for example. where a VPN directory
`
`enabled networking (DEN) data table 1572 can be taken into account in prioritization of IP flow
`
`data so as to ensure a predetermined quality of service for a VPN, e.g., for a company that
`
`subscribes to VPN functionality. VPN DEN data table 1572 pennits a module 1562 to provide a
`
`higher quality of service to a customer's VPN traffic as compared to that provided other traffic
`
`being carried over the network. (See Specification, page 122, lines 22-23, page 123, lines 1-4.)
`
`The present invention can use various tables including service level agreement (SLA) priority
`
`data table 1570 and VPN DEN data table 1572, wherein SLA priority data table 1570 can be used
`
`to prioritize traffic according to predetennined service level agreements for particular customers
`
`to affect the queuing function. (See Specification, page 122, lines 17-18).
`
`The combination of Buchholz and Chase as asserted by the Examiner in the Office Action
`
`fails to teach or suggest the recited features of a "resource allocation means for optimizing cnd-
`
`user quality of service (QoS) and allocating said shared wireless bandwidth among said
`
`DC2I40762Iv\
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`App!. No. 09/349,975
`
`subscriber ePE stations" and a "prioritization means for prioritizing said IP flow in comparison
`
`to other IP flows based on priorities of a virtual private network (VPN) associated with said IP
`
`flow," where the IP flow is communicated over a shared wireless bandwidth used for
`
`communication between a base station and ePE stations.
`
`Chase teaches using A TM QoS, which relies on assigning circuit centric permanent
`
`virtual circuits (pVes) and switched virtual circuits (SVCs) to carry certain types of traffic.
`
`Chase appears to teach a circuit-centric method of simplifying the task of PVC management for
`
`ATM operators. Chase reconstitutes packets for classification and subsequent assignment to
`
`specific pves that match the classification parameters and can then behave, in effect, as a VPN-
`
`like post office. Unlike the present invention, Chase does not schedule packets, but rather merely
`
`sorts packets into queues and lets token buckets pump out queued packets to the VPN PVC at a
`
`certain rate. The approach of Chase is consistent with both ATM and FR QoS which are both
`
`circuit-centric. ATM QoS, and circuit-centric PVCs and SVCs are orthogonal to packet-centric
`
`networking and end user QoS as defined in Applicant's specification and as set forth in the
`
`claimed invention. See, e.g., Specification at pages 57 and 58.
`
`The Examiner asserts at secrion 4 of the Office Action that Buchholz teaches a packet-
`
`centric wireless point to multipoint communication system in Fig. I comprising a wireless base
`
`station CM 110 coupled to a first data network 118, one or more subscriber customer premise
`
`equipment UM 112, and one or more subscriber workstations 114. The Examiner concedes at
`
`section 4 of the Office Action that Buchholz does not explicitly teach prioritization of an internet
`
`LX:2I407621v\
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`Appl. No. 09/349,975
`
`protocol (lP) flow based upon the quality of service (QoS) and the priorities of a virtual private
`
`network (VPN). Applicant strongly agrees.
`
`The Examiner then proceeds to assert that Chase teaches packets, including IP packets,
`
`prioritized based upon a QoS comparison of an IP flow of a VPN. Applicant strongly disagrees.
`
`Chase teaches a wired network architecture, more specifically, a frame relay (FR) or
`
`asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) network, which as claimed in Chase would only work in a
`
`fast packet network. Inherently unreliable, wireless networks as disclosed and claimed in the
`
`present invention, are anything but the reliable fast packet networks taught in Chase. Further, the
`
`QoS of Chase is in the ATM circuit-centric context (PVCs and SVCs) unlike the claimed
`
`invention. In contrast, Applicant's Specification and claims set forth a technique that optimizes
`
`end user QoS, which requires a knowledge by the prioritizing system of end user applications
`
`such as data applications including voice over IP (VoIP) data packets. A TM has no knowledge
`
`of the contents of the ATM cell. In Chase, IP packets are segmented into equal size ATM cells.
`
`Chase asserts that the IP switch of Chase can use IP addresses and TCP ports to make quality of
`
`service (QoS) decisions (Col. 6, lines 51-64). Applicant notes that knowledge of a computer's IP
`
`address is insufficient to detennine end user application QoS requirements. Since the IP packets
`
`of Chase are segmented into ATM cells in a wired fast packet frame relay circuit-centric A TM
`
`network, the ATM cells cannot be used in the wireless non-fast packet TDMA networks of
`
`Buchholz. Chase's fast packet circuit-centric ATM wired network is not compatible with
`
`Buchholz's packet transmission wireless network since the wireless network is not a fast packet
`
`OCV40762 1v l
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`Appl. No. 09/349,975
`
`network. The resulting combination asserted by the Examiner does not appear to be operable.
`
`Thus, the asserted combination also fails as being inoperative.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that it would not have been obvious 10 use lite ATM cells
`
`o/the wired network with the wireless system of Buchholz as suggested in the Office Action to
`
`allegedly reach the claimed invention. The fast packet, circuit-centric wired ATM network
`
`architecture of Chase is not capable of being integrated with the wireless system of Buchholz and
`
`even if combined would not result in Applicant's claimed packet-centric invention.
`
`4.
`
`Failure to show optimizing end-user QoS
`
`Buchholz and Chase, alone or in combination, do not contemplate optimizing end-user
`
`QoS according to Applicant's invention. The concept of quality of service (QoS) as a
`
`mechanism is discussed at great length in Applicant's specification and the Examiner is directed
`
`to the Specification for definitions relating to circuit-switched QoS, ATM QoS, circuit-centric
`
`QoS, packet-switched QoS, end-user optimized QoS and IP QoS. See for example, Applicant's
`
`Specification at pages 4-6, 22-23, and 34-40, and 57-58. At best, Chase contemplates a circuit-
`
`centric A TM QoS capable system, which is orthogonal to Applicant's packet-centric end-user
`
`QoS system as set forth in the claimed invention.
`
`Applicant's invention sets forth a system, method and computer program product that
`
`allocates shared wireless network bandwidth resources between a base station and a plurality of
`
`CPE stations so as to optimize end-user QoS. For example, claim 1 recites a system that
`
`DC2I407621 v l
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`Appl. No. 09/349,975
`
`optimizes end-user QoS. Buchholz and Chase, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest
`
`means optimizing end-user QoS. Further, Buchholz and Chase do not explicitly teach
`
`prioritization of an internet protocol (IP) flow based upon the quality of service (QoS) and the
`
`priorities of a virtual private network (VPN) in a wireless architecture.
`
`5.
`
`Failure to show an IP flow over a wireless shared bandwidth
`
`Claim 1 recites, inter alia, an IP flow over a shared wireless bandwidth. The IP flows,
`
`according to the Applicant' s claimed invention, are a group ofrelated internet protocol (IF)
`
`packets that can be identified, characterized, classified and prioritized or scheduled so as to
`
`advantageously optimize end-user quality of service (QoS). See, for example. Figures 15A,
`
`158, 16A and 16B, and the Specification from page 114 to 137. According to one embodiment
`
`of Applicant's invention, packets received that are related to previously identified IP flows can
`
`be scheduled based on previous IP flow characterization and classification, providing substantial
`
`perfonnance enhancement as compared to conventional solutions. Buchholz and Chase. alone or
`
`in combination, do not teach or suggest an IP flow over a shared wireless bandwidth.
`
`Hence, Applicant submits that Claim I is allowable over the combination of Buchholz
`
`and Chase. Claims 2-6 are dependent from Claim 1 and therefore are submitted to be allowable
`
`also because they are dependent from an allowable claim. Further, Claims 7-19 are submitted to
`
`be patentable over the combination of Buchholz and Chase for at least the same reasons that
`
`Claim I is considered patentable.
`
`DC2J40762 1vl
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`Appl. No. 09/349,975
`
`6.
`
`Failure to show IP flow prioritization based on one or more subscriber-defined
`parameters
`
`Further. neither Buchholz nor Chase teaches the IP flow prioritization based on onc or
`
`morc subscriber-defined parameters as in Claims 4, 10, and 17. Therefore, these claims are
`
`clearly distinguishable over Buchholz and Chase, alone or in combination, for at least the abovc-
`
`noted reasons.
`
`7.
`
`Failure 10 show a directory enabled networking (DEN) management scheme
`
`Even further, neither Buchholz nor Chase teaches the DEN management scheme as in
`
`Claims 5 and II . Therefore, these claims are clearly distinguishable over Buchholz and Chase,
`
`alone or in combination for at least the above-noted reasons.
`
`8.
`
`Failure to show a virtual private network (VPN) implemented using point-to-point
`
`tunne[;ng protocol (PPTP)
`
`PPTP is a completely different type ofVPN than the PVCs taught in Chase. PPTP is an
`
`active protocol, not an assigned switch fabric time slot as taught by C hase. PPTP can be used for
`
`VPNs that dynami cally change the endpoints of the VPN based upon OSllayer 2 negotiations.
`
`PPTP was specifically developed to allow user to access networks without the preconfigured
`
`knowledge of the network required. by both Buchholz and Chase. Neither Buchholz nor Chase
`
`teaches a VPN implemented. using PPTP as in Claims 6 and 13 . Therefore, these claims are
`
`OC2/40762 1v l
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`App\. No. 09/3 49,975
`
`clearly distinguishable over Buchholz and Chase, alone or in combination for at least the reasons
`
`noted above.
`
`9.
`
`Failure to show a virtual private network (VPN) implemented using internet
`protocol security (IPSec) protocol
`
`Neither Buchholz nor Chase teaches the VPN implemented using IPSec as in Claim 14.
`
`Therefore, these claims are clearly distinguishable over Buchholz and Chase, alone or
`
`combination for at least the reasons stated above.
`
`10.
`
`Failure to show a resource allocation which is application aware
`
`Claims 18 and 19 recite a "resource allocation means" and a "resource allocator,"
`
`respectively. which are "application aware." An "application aware" network element according
`
`to Applicant's invention has knowledge oflntemational Standards Organization's Open Systems
`
`Interconnect (OSI) model layers above layer 4 as will be understood by those skilled in the art.
`
`The application aware network element can obtain awareness of applications via, e.g .•
`
`configuration files, the classification features of Applicant's invention (see Specification at page
`
`131), and application operational profiles. Conventional classifiers perform classifications using
`
`packet components from layer 1 through the lower half of layer 4 (i.e. UDP vs.TCP). As
`
`described in Applicant's Specification, the claimed invention performs additional analysis on
`
`layers 4 through 7 of the OSf model to identify the application(s) in use. Applicant's invention
`
`DC2J40762 1vl
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`Appl. No. 09/349,975
`
`can then use the knowledge of the particular detected application's operation to optimize end-
`
`user quality of service (QoS) as set forth in the claimed invention by allocating wireless network
`
`resources that the IP flow associated with the application receives. Applicant's invention not
`
`only identifies the application, but can also continuously reconfigure resource allocations "on the
`
`fly" based on the application's quality of service needs. Using the claimed invention' s
`
`application awareness, Applicant's invention is able to provide optimal end-user quality of
`
`service (QoS) to identified and analyzed applications. ATM QoS, as set forth in the A TM
`
`context in the applied Chase reference is not application aware and cannot change resource
`
`allocations to meet end-user QoS application needs. Chase is unaware of the enduser application
`
`associated with data being carried in an ATM cell.
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed,
`
`accommodated, or rendered moot. Applicants therefore respectfully request that the Examiner
`
`reconsider all presently outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Applicants believe that a full and complete reply has been made to the outstanding Office Action
`
`and, as such, the present application is in condition for allowance. If the Examiner believes, for
`
`any reason, that personal communication will expedite prosecution of this application, the
`
`Examiner is hereby invited to telephone the undersigned at the number provided.
`
`DC2/407621vl
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Applicant: Jacob JORGENSEN
`App!. No. 09/349,975
`
`Prompt and favorable consideration of this Amendment is respeclfully requested.
`
`Date: --1.!iI--f.-!/ G'Lf-)~O;3=-------_
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`~~ Registration No. 43,466
`
`VENABLE
`P.O. Box 34385
`Washington, D.C. 20043-9998
`Telephone: (202) 962-4800
`Telefax: (202) 962-8300
`
`0C2I407621v l
`
`-17-
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
