Ex Parte Adusumilli

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2013

10045893 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013)

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.
10/045,893 01/12/2002 Koteshwerrao Adusumilli 42390P12318X 3131
7590 04/30/2013
BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
Seventh Floor
12400 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1030
EXAMINER
BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2013 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)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KOTESHWERRAO ADUSUMILLI
____________________

Appeal 2010-011152
Application 10/045,893
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, BARBARA A. BENOIT,
and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

STATEMENT OF CASE
Claims 33-60 are pending in the application. Appellant appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 33-60. App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The claims are generally directed to a mechanism for supporting
wired and wireless architectures for client side certificates and server side
certificates. See generally Spec. ¶ 0003. Claim 33, reproduced below, is
Appeal 2010-011152
Application 10/045,893

2
illustrative of the claimed subject matter with disputed limitations
emphasized:
33. An apparatus to reside in a data center coupled
between a public network and a server of the data center, the
apparatus comprising:
a first interface to the public network to receive Secure
Sockets Layer (SSL) encrypted data from at least one wired
client device and to receive Wireless Transport Layer Security
(WTLS) encrypted data from at least one wireless client device;
client-type determining logic to determine whether a
client device requesting a secure connection is a wired client
device or a wireless client device;
logic to perform a wired authentication to establish the
secure connection when it is determined that the requesting
client device is the wired client device;
logic to perform a wireless authentication to establish the
secure connection when it is determined that the requesting
client device is the wireless client device;
logic to convert the SSL encrypted data to an
unencrypted format and to convert the WTLS encrypted data to
an unencrypted format; and
a second interface to provide the data in the unencrypted
formats to the server of the data center.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Stubblebine US 6,216,231 B1 Apr. 10, 2001
Hajmiragha US 6,289,460 B1 Sept. 11, 2001
Kramer US 2002/0099957 A1 July 25, 2002
Filed Jan. 24, 2001
Stewart US 6,571,221 B1 May 27, 2003
Filed Nov. 3, 1999
Douglas US 2004/0010684 A1 Jan. 15, 2004
Filed June 10, 1998
Appeal 2010-011152
Application 10/045,893

3
Bacha US 6,931,526 B1 Aug. 16, 2005
Filed Dec. 31, 1998
Halme US 7,099,284 B2 Aug. 29, 2006
Filed Nov. 29, 2000

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 33-36, 38, 40, 42, 43, 45, 48, 50-52,
and 54-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stewart,
Kramer, and Halme. Ans. 3-5.
The Examiner rejected claims 37, 41, 44, 46, and 49 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stewart, Kramer, Halme, and Douglas.
Ans. 5-6.
The Examiner rejected claims 39 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stewart, Kramer, Halme, and Hajmiragha. Ans. 6-7.
The Examiner rejected claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stewart, Kramer, Halme, and Stubblebine. Ans. 7.
The Examiner rejected claim 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stewart, Kramer, Halme, and Bacha. Ans. 7-8.

CLAIMS 37, 39, 41, 44, 46, 47, 49, 53, AND 60
Appellant originally appealed under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 33-60. See Not. Of App. (stating
“Applicant hereby appeals . . . from the last decision of the examiner”
(emphasis omitted)); see also App. Br. 3 (“Claims 33-60 are on appeal.”);
see also App. Br. 11 (Appellant indicates a subtitle of “GROUP I: CLAIMS
33-55, 59, and 60” for arguments to be presented.). In the Appeal Brief,
however, Appellant states both that claims 33-60 “are on appeal” (App. Br.
Appeal 2010-011152
Application 10/045,893

4
3) and that claims 37, 39, 41, 44, 46, 47, 49, 53, and 60 are “not to be
reviewed on appeal” (App. Br. 17-18). Consistent with the holding of our
precedential opinion Ex Parte Ghuman, 88 USPQ2d 1478, 1480 (BPAI
2008), Appellant may not reserve arguments for some later time. Arguments
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 37, 39, 41, 44, 46, 47, 49, 53, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

CLAIMS 33-36, 38, 40, 42, 43, 45, 48, 50-52, 54, 55, AND 59
In rejecting independent claim 33, the Examiner finds Stewart teaches
an interface (i.e., a first interface) to receive data from at least one wired
client device and one wireless client device (see, e.g., col. 8, ll. 47-55) and
teaches logic to determine if the device is wired or wireless (see, e.g., col. 7,
ll. 43-62; col. 8, ll. 20-30). Ans. 3. The Examiner notes that Stewart does not
teach logic for converting Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) and Wireless
Transport Layer Security (WTLS) encrypted data to an unencrypted format.
Id. The Examiner finds that Kramer’s ¶¶ 0024 and 0050 teach security
format conversion system to convert from SSL and WTLS. Ans. 4. The
Examiner does not specifically point to a teaching in Stewart of the recited
second interface. However, Examiner further finds that Kramer’s ¶ 0049
shows a network interface and a server to receive converted data (i.e., a
“second interface” as recited). Id. The Examiner articulates a reason for the
combination of Stewart and Kramer because Kramer shows that “SSL and
WTLS are widely accepted and compatible protocols.” Id. The Examiner
further finds that Halme teaches use of a Virtual Private Network (VPN) in
Appeal 2010-011152
Application 10/045,893

5
which “encrypted data is sent from one private network over a public
network to a second private [network] where it is decrypted at a node and
forwarded over a private network lan (data center) (Col 1 lines 20-35, Col 3
lines 35-55, Fig 3).” Id. The Examiner articulates a reason for the
combination of Stewart, Kramer, and Halme because Halme allows end to
end security. Id.
Appellant generally argues that the combination of Stewart, Kramer,
and Halme fails to teach all elements of claim 33 stating:
However, Stewart does not disclose or render obvious the
claimed apparatus to reside in a data center coupled between
a public network and a server of the data center that
comprises a first interface to the public network to receive
SSL and WTLS encrypted data, and that has logic to convert
the SSL and WTLS encrypted data to unencrypted formats,
and that has a second interface to provide the data in the
unencrypted formats to the server of the data center, in
combination with the other claim limitations.
App. Br. 11-15. Appellant further argues that there is no suggestion or
motivation to make the proposed combination of Stewart, Kramer, and
Halme. App. Br. 15.

ISSUES
Appellant’s arguments raise the following issues:
(1) Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Stewart,
Kramer, and Halme shows an apparatus to reside in a data center
coupled between a public network (via a first interface having both
wired and wireless connections) and a server (via a second
interface)?
Appeal 2010-011152
Application 10/045,893

6
(2) Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Stewart,
Kramer, and Halme shows logic to convert SSL and WTLS
encrypted data to unencrypted formats?
(3) Has the Examiner erred by failing to show motivation or
suggestion to combine Stewart, Kramer, and Halme?

ISSUE 1 ANALYSIS
The Examiner’s rejection finds that Stewart’s hybrid access point (124
of Figs. 1C, 2C) shows an apparatus with a first interface to receive data
from a wired client device and from a wireless client device. Ans. 3; see,
e.g., Stewart Figs. 1C, 2C; col. 8, ll. 20-30, 47-55; col. 7, ll. 43-62. The
Examiner also finds that Stewart’s service provider (140 of Fig. 1C) shows
requesting a secure connection from a wired or wireless device and shows
authenticating the requesting client to establish a secure connection. Id.; see,
e.g., Stewart col. 13, ll. 33-44; col. 14, ll. 29-43. The Examiner further finds
that Kramer’s ¶ 0049 (in combination with Stewart) shows the second
interface coupled with a server for receiving unencrypted (decrypted) data.
Ans. 4.
Appellant’s arguments repeatedly emphasize that Stewart’s access
point 124 does not reside in a data center coupled between a public network
and a server of the data center and does not have the claimed first or second
interfaces (see, e.g., App. Br. 13). Regarding the recited data center, the
Examiner relies on Halme’s disclosure of a private network LAN. Ans. 4.
In responding to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner explains that, given
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “data center,” Kramer
shows a private corporate network that the Examiner considers a “data
Appeal 2010-011152
Application 10/045,893

7
center” as recited in the claim and further explains that Halme explicitly
shows such a data center. Ans. 10. We agree and are therefore unpersuaded.
Appellant further argues that the hybrid device 124 and the service
provider 140 of Stewart are different components separated by network 130
(preferably the Internet) and thus cannot show an apparatus coupled between
a public network and a server. App. Br. 12. In other words, Appellant
argues, in essence, that hybrid device 124 is on the “wrong side” of network
130. We are unpersuaded.
A determination of obviousness does not require the claimed
invention to be expressly suggested by any one or all of the references. See,
e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. Id. The Examiner explains that Kramer in
combination with Stewart shows an interface “behind the centralized
network rather than in front of it” (i.e., on the correct side of a network).
Ans. 8-9. Thus, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand from the suggestions of the combined teachings of Stewart and
Kramer that the functions of Stewart’s hybrid access point 124 and service
provider 140 may be positioned as claimed between a public network and a
server.
We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the
combination of Stewart, Kramer, and Halme shows an apparatus to reside in
a data center coupled between a public network (via a first interface having
both wired and wireless connections) and a server (via a second interface).

Appeal 2010-011152
Application 10/045,893

8
ISSUE 2 ANALYSIS
The Examiner acknowledges that Stewart does not teach conversion
of received SSL and WTLS data to an unencrypted format and finds that
Kramer teaches a security format conversion system including conversion
from SSL and WTLS. Ans. 3-4.
Appellant argues that Stewart “does not disclose logic to convert the
SSL and WTLS encrypted data to unencrypted formats.” App. Br. 12. The
Examiner explains that Stewart is not relied upon for showing decryption of
SSL or WTLS encrypted data but rather Kramer was relied up for such a
teaching. Ans. 8. We agree and are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument
that is not consistent with the rejection.
Appellant further argues that Kramer fails to show the conversion of
SSL and WTLS to corresponding unencrypted formats. App. Br. 13-14.
Specifically, Appellant argues that
the conversion from WTLS to another format (e.g., SSL) . . .
would typically be performed e.g., in a WAP gateway or the
like. For example a cell phone may use WTLS but a server in
communication with the cell phone would typically not receive
WTLS but rather SSL or some other wired format after the
WTLS data was converted, for example, in a WAP gateway.
App. Br. 14. We are unpersuaded. As a preliminary note we observe that
Appellant argues that a WAP gateway is typically used to convert WTLS to
“another format (e.g., SSL).” Id. Claim 33 however recites conversion from
WTLS to an “unencrypted format” rather than to SSL. In addition, the
Examiner further explains:
The Appellant is correct that a WAP gateway typically
converts a WTLS request, but this is not always the case. A
dedicated public line may be used with a wireless client, and the
WAP conversion may take place at the entrance to the corporate
Appeal 2010-011152
Application 10/045,893

9
network, along the lines of the present invention. Thus,
although the appellant is correct about a typical WAP setup, the
examiner asserts that a VPN connection to a corporate network
does not need to use said typical method, and may use a method
such as the examiner has suggested, and that which is taught by
Kramer. Thus in the method taught by Kramer, the VPN server
would receive WTLS data.
Ans. 9-10. Regardless of whether a WAP gateway is typically used or
required for conversion of WTLS, claim 33 recites no such requirement of a
WAP gateway.
We are therefore unpersuaded of error and conclude that the
combination of Stewart, Kramer, and Halme shows logic to convert SSL and
WTLS encrypted data to unencrypted formats.

ISSUE 3 ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in combining Stewart,
Kramer, and Halme in that there is no suggestion or motivation to make the
proposed combination and that “modifications to the references not taught in
the art would likely be necessary in order to modify the references in the
manner proposed by the Examiner.” App. Br. 15. We are unpersuaded.
Appellant’s argument incorrectly suggests that the motivation or suggestion
to combine or modify the references must be found in the art.
The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation,
or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and
the explicit content of issued patents. The diversity of inventive
pursuits and of modern technology counsels against limiting the
analysis in this way.
Appeal 2010-011152
Application 10/045,893

10
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). The Examiner has
provided reasons for the combination of Stewart, Kramer, and Halme based
on rational underpinnings. Ans. 4.
Furthermore, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. More specifically, “when a patent
‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from
such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” Id. at 417 (quoting
Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). We find that the
Examiner has combined well known elements of the references to yield
predictable results—i.e., enhancing Stewart’s hybrid access point with
security features of Kramer and Halme to provide SSL and WTLS
decryption for establishing secure connections in coupling a public network
with a server.
We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in combining
Stewart, Kramer, and Halme.
Independent claims 42, 50, and 59 include similar recitations and were
rejected for similar reasons. Ans. 3-4. Claims 34-36, 38, 40, 43, 45, 48, 51,
52, 54, and 55 depend from these independent claims. Appellant does not
argue these claims separately from claim 33 (App. Br. 15) and we are
therefore similarly unpersuaded of error.

CLAIMS 56-58
Claim 56 is an independent claim similar to claim 33 but recites
Public Key Infrastructure (“PKI”) logic and Wireless PKI (“WPKI”) logic
Appeal 2010-011152
Application 10/045,893

11
for establishment of respective secure connections. Claims 57 and 58 depend
from claim 56. The Examiner rejected claim 56 under the same reasoning as
claim 33. Ans. 3-4. Appellant argues that Stewart, Kramer, and Halme fail to
show PKI and WPKI logic for establishing secure wired and wireless
connections, respectively. App. Br. 16-17.
In rejecting claim 56, the Examiner has not pointed to any teaching of
the use of PKI and WPKI logic to establish secure connections as recited in
the claim. We are therefore persuaded of error and will not sustain the
rejection of claims 56-58.1

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 33 and claims 34-36, 38,
40, 42, 43, 45, 48, 50-52, 54, 55, and 59 not separately argued with
particularity. App. Br. 15.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 56 and claims 57 and 58
dependent therefrom.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 37, 39, 41, 44, 46, 47, 49, 53, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 33-36, 38,
40, 42, 43, 45, 48, 50-52, 54, 55, and 59 is affirmed.

1 Although the Examiner does not specifically point to a teaching of PKI
techniques, we note that Stewart describes using digital certificates based on
public/private key technology to perform secure transactions. See, e.g.,
Stewart, col. 1, ll. 15-67.
Appeal 2010-011152
Application 10/045,893

12
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 56-58 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc