Ex Parte Branigan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 13, 2009

09755470 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 13, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte STEVEN BRANIGAN and WILLIAM ROBERTS CHESWICK
__________

Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470
Technology Center 2400
__________

Decided: November 13, 2009
__________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAY P. LUCAS, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to authenticating users in a
wireless network for connection to a wired network. (Spec. 1).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A wired network for providing secure, authenticated
access to wireless network clients, comprising:
a server connected to a wireless network access point, and
having access to the wired network, the server being operative to
perform authentication for a wireless client establishing a connection
to the server through the wireless network access point, the server
performing authentication by examining authentication information
transmitted from the client to the server and determining whether or
not the authentication information identifies the wireless network
client as authorized to gain access to the wired network, the server
being operative to establish a connection session upon authentication
of a client, the server being also operative to provide the client with a
wired network address valid for the connection session upon
authentication of the client, the server being further operative to
encrypt communications with the wireless network access point, the
server being further operative to provide a cryptographic key to the
client to be used for encrypted communication with the wired network
and valid for the connection session, upon authentication of the client;
and
a user database accessible to the server for use in validating
wireless clients.

Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

2
The References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Massarani US 6,393,484 B1 May 21, 2002
(filed Apr. 12, 1999)
Lewis US 6,526,506 B1 Feb. 25, 2003
(filed Feb. 25, 1999)
Redlich US 6,591,306 B1 Jul. 08, 2003
(filed Jul. 21, 1999)
Bhagwat US 6,651,105 B1 Nov. 18, 2003
(filed Nov. 12, 1999)
Schuster US 6,857,072 B1 Feb. 15, 2005
(filed Sep. 27, 1999)

The Rejections
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Massarani and Lewis.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2-5 and 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Massarani, Lewis, and
Bhagwat.
3. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Massarani, Lewis, Bhagwat, and
Redlich.
4. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Massarani, Lewis,
Bhagwat, and Schuster.

Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

3
ISSUE 1
Appellants assert that Massarani fails to disclose or suggest “‘a server
connected to a wireless network access point, and having access to the wired
network’” because, according to Appellants, the “end user devices . . . are
connected directly to the network 14 [rather than via a network access
point]” (App. Br. 9).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Massarani discloses or suggests a server connected to a wireless network
access point and having access to a wired network?

ISSUE 2
Appellants assert that Massarani fails to disclose or suggest “that the
server provides ‘the client with a wired network address valid for the
connection session.’” (App. Br. 10).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that
Massarani discloses or suggests a server providing a client with a wired
network address valid for a connection session?

ISSUE 3
Appellants assert that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined the Massarani and Lewis
references because, according to Appellants, “Lewis . . . effectively teaches
away from the present claims.” (App. Br. 11). Appellants also argue that “it
is only in hindsight, after seeing the claimed invention, that the Examiner
Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

4
could combine the references [Massarani and Lewis] as the Examiner has
done” (App. Br. 15) and that “the Examiner does not appear to have
considered ‘where the references [Massarani and Lewis] diverge and teach
away from the claimed invention’ . . . [and has not] read the claims as a
whole” (App. Br. 15).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined
the Massarani and Lewis references?

ISSUE 4
Appellants assert that “[i]t does not appear that any server of
Massarani or Lewis operates [as a portal between the wireless network and a
wired network]” (App. Br. 12).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Massarani and Lewis discloses or suggests a server operating
as a portal between a wireless network and a wired network?

ISSUE 5
Appellants assert that Bhagwat fails to disclose or suggest “‘providing
access to wired network resources in response to requests by the wireless-
client’” (App. Br. 12).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Massarani, Lewis and Bhagwat discloses or suggests
Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

5
providing access to a wired network in response to a request by a wireless
client?

ISSUE 6
Appellants assert that Massarani fails to disclose or suggest a
“network hub” (App. Br. 13).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Massarani, Lewis and Bhagwat discloses or suggests a
network hub?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Massarani discloses “a plurality of mobile/dynamic end user devices
. . . . connected to a shared-medium network 14” (col. 4, ll. 32-35).
2. Massarani discloses that “devices . . . are connected to the network
. . . through a layered communication system” (col. 4, ll. 36-38) such
that “devices are connected to the network at access ports 201, . . .
20N” (col. 4, ll. 39-40) and that “[e]ach access port . . . is coupled to
an edge router/switch 221 . . . [which is] coupled through a network
link . . . to a Dynamic Host Control Protocol (DHCP) server” (col. 4,
ll. 54-65).
3. Massarani discloses that the “DHCP server assigns a new address
and sends it to the client together with the address of a router on the
Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

6
same network as the DHCP server and the subnet match for that
network.” (Col. 5, ll. 2-5).
4. Massarani discloses that the DHCP server “selects an appropriate IP
address and associated parameters to be returned to the requesting
end user device.” (Col. 6, ll. 51-53).
5. Massarani discloses “the end user device . . . will initiate a DHCP
exchange in an attempt to obtain a valid IP address and other
associated parameters.” (Col. 6, ll. 26-28).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal of the rejections of claims 1-6 with respect to issue 1 on the basis
of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

7
Appellants argue that Massarani fails to disclose or suggest a server
connected to an access point. However, Massarani discloses a server, such
as a DHCP Server (Fig. 1), that connects to router/switches (e.g., Core
router/Switch and/or Edge Router/Switch) through which wireless devices
access a wired network (FF 1-2). Appellants do not indicate an explicit
definition of the term “network access point” in the Specification. Thus, we
construe the term “network access point” broadly but reasonably to include
any device or entity through which access to a network may be achieved. In
Massarani, mobile devices gain access to a network via routers/switches and
ports, which therefore constitute “network access points.” In addition, the
server in Massarani has “access” to the wired network (i.e., network 14 –
Fig. 1, FF 1). We therefore are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of
claims 2-6, which fall therewith with respect to issue 1.

Issue 2
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal of the rejections of claims 1-6 with respect to issue 2 on the basis
of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that Massarani fails to disclose or suggest providing
a client with a network address for a connection session. However, as set
forth above, Massarani discloses a server providing an IP address and
Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

8
parameters for a session that are returned to a requesting end user device (FF
3-4). We find no distinction between the server of Massarani providing an
address (and parameters) for a session to a requesting user device and the
claimed feature of a server providing a network address to a client for a
session. Nor have Appellants indicated any specific differences between the
seemingly identical concepts.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of
claims 2-6, which fall therewith with respect to issue 2.

Issue 3
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal of the rejections of claims 1-15 with respect to issue 3 on the
basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants assert that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined the Massarani and Lewis
references. We disagree.
Massarani discloses “a plurality of mobile/dynamic end user devices”
(co. 4, l. 32) in a network “which prevents unauthorized devices and users
from obtaining network services” (col. 4, ll. 35-36). Similarly, Lewis also
discloses “a wireless network” (col. 2, ll. 46-47) that maintains data security
use “[a] multi-level encryption scheme” (col. 2, l. 46). Hence, Massarani
demonstrates that it was known to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide
Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

9
and utilize a network of mobile devices and to ensure data security (by
preventing unauthorized devices from accessing the network) and Lewis
demonstrates that it would known in the art to ensure data security in a
wireless network by encrypting data. Combining the known element of
Massarani (i.e., secure wireless network) with the known element of Lewis
(i.e., securing a wireless network by encrypting data) would have resulted in
no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their
established functions (i.e., secure data access in a wireless network).
“[W]hen 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.” KSR
Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 417 (citing Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282
(1976)).
Appellants argue that “Lewis . . . effectively teaches away from the
present claims” because “Lewis provides no basis for modifying Massarani
in a manner so as to meet the present claims” (App. Br. 11).
“‘A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from following
the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent
from the path that was taken by the applicant.’” Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc.
v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In
re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Appellants fail to provide arguments demonstrating that one of
ordinary skill in the art, upon examining the Lewis reference, would be
Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

10
discouraged from encrypting data in Massarani. For example, Appellants
have not demonstrated that Lewis discourages or provides any warning to
one of ordinary skill in the art not to encrypt data to achieve data security in
a wireless network. On the contrary, as set forth above, Lewis appears to
explicitly disclose encrypting data in a wireless network. We are therefore
not persuaded that Lewis “teaches away.”
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of
claims 2-15, which fall therewith with respect to issue 3.

Issue 4
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal of the rejections of claims 7-9 with respect to issue 4 on the basis
of claim 7 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that the combination of Massarani and Lewis fails to
disclose or suggest a server operating as a portal between a wireless and a
wired network, however, Appellants do not indicate an explicit definition of
the term “portal” in the Specification. Under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, we find that a “portal” includes any device or entity that
provides entry. Thus, in the present case, a portal between networks
includes any entity that provides entry from one network to the other. Since
Massarani discloses a server in a network for “controlling access to shared-
medium public and semi-public networks” (col. 3, ll. 11-12), the server of
Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

11
Massarani functions as a portal to the extent that the server controls entry of
devices into the network. Thus, we find that Appellants have not
demonstrated a distinction between the server of Massarani and the claimed
feature of a server operating as a portal between networks.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, or of
claims 8 and 9, which fall therewith with respect to issue 4.

Issue 5
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal of the rejections of claims 10-15 with respect to issue 5 on the
basis of claim 10 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that the combination of Massarani, Lewis, and
Bhagwat fails to disclose or suggest providing access to a network in
response to requests from a client. However, while Bhagwat discloses re-
establishing a connection between a mobile device and a peer when the host
moves (i.e., providing access to a network), Massarani also discloses a user
device initiating an exchange with the server to gain access to the network
(i.e., sending a request) (FF 5). Appellants have provided no arguments
demonstrating a distinction between a user device initiating an exchange
with a server to gain access to a network (Massarani and Bhagwat) and the
claimed feature of providing access to a network in response to a request
from a user device.
Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

12
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, or of
claims 11-15, which fall therewith with respect to issue 5.

Issue 6
Appellants argue that Massarani fails to disclose or suggest the
network including a network hub. Using a broad but reasonable
interpretation of the term “network hub” in the absence of an explicit
definition of the term in the Specification, we find that a network hub
includes any entity that serves as a central connection point for devices.
Massarani discloses such a “network hub.” For example, Massarani
discloses the network serving as a central connection point for end user
devices (e.g., multiple mobile/dynamic end-user devices – Fig. 1). We find
no discernible difference, and Appellants have failed to indicate a
distinction, between the network connecting multiple end user devices in a
“hub” configuration and the claimed “network hub.”
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 with
respect to issue 6.

Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

13
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in:
1. finding that Massarani discloses or suggests a server connected
to a wireless network access point and having access to a wired network
(issue #1),
2. finding that Massarani discloses or suggests a server providing
a client with a wired network address valid for a connection session (issue
#2),
3. finding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have combined the Massarani and Lewis references (issue #3),
4. finding that the combination of Massarani and Lewis discloses
or suggests a server operating as a portal between a wireless network and a
wired network (issue #4),
5. finding that the combination of Massarani, Lewis and Bhagwat
discloses or suggests providing access to a wired network in response to a
request by a wireless client (issue #5), and
6. finding that the combination of Massarani, Lewis and Bhagwat
discloses or suggests a network hub (issue #6).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2008-005518
Application 09/755,470

14
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).

AFFIRMED

nhl

PRIEST & GOLDSTEIN PLLC
5015 SOUTHPARK DRIVE
SUITE 230
DURHAM, NC 27713-7736