Ex Parte Bu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2018

14596758 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2018)

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.
14/596,758 01/14/2015 Tian Bu 129250-002214/US/CON 8143
32498 7590 03/12/2018
CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC
P.O. BOX 1995
VIENNA, VA 22183
EXAMINER
SABOURI, MAZDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
j curtin @ cappat. com
knetznik@cappat.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIAN BU, SAMPHEL NORDEN, and THOMAS Y. WOO
Appeal 2017-002156
Application 14/596,758
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—3, 5—7, and 9-16, which constitute all claims pending in this
application.1 Claims 4 and 8 have been canceled. Claims App’x. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Alcatel-Lucent. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-002156
Application 14/596,758
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter relates to using
wireless specific state information (e.g., setup/release, timestamp of
signaling messages, power control information), mobility information (e.g.,
time the mobile device is active) to detect the presence of malicious attacks.
Spec. 9-10, 31, Fig. 1. In particular, a profiler (101) collects wireless
state information from different elements of the wireless infrastructure, and
subsequently compares the collected wireless state information with profile
information (e.g., packet arrival times, IP addresses, port numbers of
sources/destinations) of the wireless network collected during a non-attack
state to thereby determine possible inconsistencies. Id. H 14—18.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for detecting an attack against a wireless
network comprising:
generating a profile based on non-attack, wireless traffic
conditions;
inferring wireless state information from knowledge of at
least network wireless data channel set-up and release
information and application based information; and
comparing the inferred information to the profile to
determine whether an attack is directed at an element in the
wireless network.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Shaheen US 2004/0192291 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Sperti US 2008/0043686 A1 Feb. 21,2008
2
Appeal 2017-002156
Application 14/596,758
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—3, 5—7, and 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as
being anticipated by Sperti. Final Act. 3—7.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Sperti and Shaheen. Final Act. 7—8.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3—5, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-4.2
Anticipation Rejection
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Sperti
describes “inferring wireless state information from knowledge of at least
network wireless data channel set-up and release information and application
based information,” as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 3—4, Reply
Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellants argue Sperti’s disclosure of using
association/authentication and dissociation/de-authentication information
does not teach using channel set-up and release information to protect a
wireless networks against malicious attacks. Id. The Examiner avers that
the cited terms as they appear in Sperti’s disclosure are technical equivalents
of the disputed terms as recited in the claims. Ans. 2—3. In response,
Appellants argue that, according to the Specification, “inferring wireless
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 28, 2016) (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed November 30, 2016) (“Reply Br.”), and the Answer (mailed October
7, 2016) (“Ans.”) for the respective details. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-002156
Application 14/596,758
state information occurs when the collection of information from elements
of a wireless infrastructure is not possible.” Reply Br. 2. Accordingly,
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to
make such inference from Sperti because there is no evidence of record that
the terms relied upon by the Examiner are indeed technical equivalents to
the disputed claim terms. Id. at 2—3.
These arguments are persuasive. At the outset, we note that the
principal dispute between Appellants and the Examiner is whether Sperti’s
disclosure of association/authentication and dissociation/de-authentication
information describes channel set-up and release information respectively.
Sperti discloses an attack detector module (ADM-130) that intercepts
wireless traffic to collect therefrom data that is correlated against
state/profile information (including authentication/association data) of the
wireless network to detect possible intrusions into the wireless network.
Sperti || 95—101, 128—129. Similarly to the claimed invention, Sperti
describes detecting malicious attacks against a wireless network by
comparing “over-the-air” information collected from the wireless network
elements with state/profile information regarding the wireless network. Id. |
129. We agree with Appellants, however, that the Examiner has not
presented sufficient evidence on this record to substantiate the finding that
association/authentication and dissociation/de-authentication, as disclosed
by Sperti, are technical equivalents to the claimed channel set-up, and
release information, respectively. Although Sperti substantially discloses
the claimed invention, we see no evidence in Sperti to substantiate the
Examiner’s conclusory findings. Furthermore, as noted above, the
association and authentication data are disclosed in Sperti as being part of
4
Appeal 2017-002156
Application 14/596,758
the state/profile information, and not the “over-the-air” information.
Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5—7, and 9-14, which also suffer the deficiencies
noted above.
Obviousness Rejection
Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 15 and 16, because
Shaheen does not cure the noted deficiencies of Sperti discussed above, we
do not sustain this rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 1—3, 5—7, and 9—14. We likewise reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 15 and 16.
REVERSED
5