Ex Parte Bailey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2015

11671264 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2015)

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.
11/671,264 02/05/2007 Daniel Vernon Bailey 4414-48 8682
80167 7590 05/20/2015
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
48 South Service Road
Suite 100
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
TRAN, MONG-THUY THI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2015 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)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL VERNON BAILEY, JOHN G. BRAINARD,
ARI JUELS, and BURTON S. KALISKI, JR.
____________

Appeal 2012-012508
Application 11/671,264
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JASON V. MORGAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1–29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is EMC Corporation
Appeal Br. 1.

Appeal 2012-012508
Application 11/671,264

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to authentication, encryption or other
protocols of wireless authentication tokens. Spec. 1 ll. 9–11. Independent
claim 1, which is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, is reproduced
below.
1. A first processing device for use in a wireless network,
the wireless network comprising at least one access point and
one or more stations, the first processing device comprising:
a memory;
a processor coupled to the memory; and
network interface circuitry coupled to the processor;
the processor being operative to control the transmission
of information via the network interface circuitry in a manner
that emulates standard communications of an access point of
the wireless network although the first processing device is not
configured to operate as an actual access point of the wireless
network;
wherein a second processing device receiving the
transmitted information is able to determine therefrom that the
transmitted information originates from an emulated access
point rather than an actual access point, the second processing
device responding to such a condition by utilizing the
transmitted information in a manner distinct from its utilization
of information received from the actual access point of the
wireless network.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner has rejected claims 1–6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17,
22–29 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Le Saint et al. (US
2005/0136964 A1; Jun. 23, 2005) (“Le Saint”) and Page et al. (US 7,324,462
B1Jan. 29, 2008) (“Page”).
Appeal 2012-012508
Application 11/671,264

3
2. The Examiner has rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Le Saint, Page, and Meier et al. (US
2007/0140163 A1; Jun. 21, 2007) (“Meier”).
3. The Examiner has rejected claims 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Le Saint, Page, and Buer
(US 2007/0118891 A1; May 24, 2007) (“Buer”).
4. The Examiner has rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Le Saint, Page, and Lee (US 2002/0181701 A1;
Dec. 5, 2002) (“Lee”).

ANALYSIS
The Appellants contend that “Le Saint contains no teaching or
suggestion that the intelligent remote device 110 emulates an access point of
a wireless network2.” Br. 7. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments
that the Examiner has erred.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that the intelligent remote
device of Le Saint emulates standard communications of an access point.
Answer 6, 14. Relying primarily on paragraphs 69–72, the Examiner finds
that the intelligent remote device remotely authenticates to the computer
system using the two factor authentication transaction. Answer 14. The
Examiner also finds that “the token emulator application 182 generates an
access request message AR 190 which is sent over the network 65 to the
computer system 105 wherein the access request message is used to transit a

2 Appellants present additional arguments in the Appeal Brief. However,
because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not address
these additional arguments.
Appeal 2012-012508
Application 11/671,264

4
wireless access point in wireless network arrangements.” Answer 6 (citing
Le Saint ¶¶ 69–70). With these findings, the Examiner concludes “[t]hus,
the first processing device emulates standard communications of an access
point of the wireless network.” Answer 14.
Appellants argue that merely sending an access request message to the
computer system does not teach or suggest emulating an access point of a
wireless network. Br. 7. We agree. The fact that the intelligent remote
device sends an access request message wirelessly to the computer system
merely shows that the intelligent remote device can communicate wirelessly
with the computer system, not that it emulates the standard communications
of a wireless access point. Similarly, wireless two factor authentication
merely shows the capability of the intelligent remote device to authenticate
itself wirelessly, but does not sufficiently teach or suggest emulation of a
wireless access point. Moreover, the Examiner does not provide sufficient
explanation of how sending a wireless access request message, or
performing two factor authentication, would teach that the intelligent remote
device emulates the standard communication of a wireless access point.
On this record we are constrained to conclude the Examiner has not
sufficiently established that Le Saint teaches or suggests “a first processing
device . . . emulates standard communications of an access point of the
wireless network although the first processing device is not configured to
operate as an actual access point of the wireless network.” Accordingly we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and of
independent claims 22, 24, and 28 which contain limitations substantially
similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. We also do not sustain the
Appeal 2012-012508
Application 11/671,264

5
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–21, 23, 25–27, and 29 which depend from
independent claims 1, 22, 24, and 28.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–29 is reversed.

REVERSED

dw