Ex Parte Devarapalli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2016

11077491 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111077,491 03/1112005
12358 7590 09/15/2016
Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vijay Devarapalli
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
39700-622001 US/NC40273US 1709
EXAMINER
SISON, TIJNE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2016 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIJA Y DEV ARAP ALLI, BASA V ARAJ PATIL,
MOHAN PARTHASARATHY, HANNU FLINCK,
and MEGHANA SAHASRABUDHE
Appeal2015-004076
Application 11/077 ,491 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and KAMRAN JIV ANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-7, 9-21, 23-27, 29--40, 45, 47-52, 59, 60, and 62---64.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants' invention is a method of configuring a mobile node. A
first message sent from user equipment to a server requests a home agent
1 The real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
2 Claims 2, 8, 22, 28, 41-44, 46, 53-58, and 61 have been cancelled.
Appeal2015-004076
Application 11/077 ,491
and/or a home address. The method further includes authenticating the user
equipment and providing the home agent and/or home address only when the
user equipment is authenticated. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a first message from a user equipment at a
server comprising at least one hardware processor, wherein the
first message requests at least one of a home agent and a home
address, the first message is sent during a link control protocol
phase of a point to point protocol prior to the user equipment
receiving one or more authentication challenges;
authenticating the user equipment;
determining at least one of the home agent and the home
address being dynamically assigned to the user equipment in
response to the first message sent by the user equipment prior to
the user equipment receiving the one or more authentication
challenges, wherein the first message requests the at least one
of the home agent and the home address, the determining taking
place during the authenticating; and
providing the assigned at least one of the home agent and
the home address to the user equipment only when the user
equipment is authenticated, and not providing the assigned at
least one of the home agent and the home address to the user
equipment when authenticating the user equipment fails.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Feder
Abrol
Oyama
US 2002/0089958 Al
US 2003/0227937 Al
US 2007/0124592 Al
July 11, 2002
Dec. 11, 2003
May 31, 2007
Narten and Draves, Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
Auotconfiguration in 1Pv6, Network Working Group, RFC 3041 (Jan. 2001)
(hereinafter "Narten").
2
Appeal2015-004076
Application 11/077 ,491
Aboba et al., RADIUS and 1Pv6, Network Working Group, RFC 3162
(Aug. 2001) (hereinafter "Aboba").
3rd Generation Partnership Project 2 "3GPP2", Stronger Access
Authentication Mechanism for Mobile Stations (Mar. 15, 2003) (hereinafter
"3GPP2-Nokia").
3rd Generation Partnership Project 2 "3GPP2", cdma2000 Wireless IP
Network Standard: Introduction; Simple IP and Mobile IP Access Services;
Packet Data Mobility and Resource Management; Quality of Service and
Header Reduction; Accounting Services and 3GPP2 Radius VSAs; PrePaid
Packet Data Service, (Aug. 2003) (hereinafter "3GPP2").
Claims 1, 21, 45, 47, 48, 59, and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over 3GPP2-Nokia and 3GPP2.
Claims 62---64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over 3GPP2-Nokia, 3GPP2, and Aboba.
Claims 1, 4--7, 9, 21, 24--27, 29, 45, 47, 48, 59, and 60 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feder, Abrol, and
3GPP2.
Claims 3, 10-20, 23, 30-40, 49, 51, and 52 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feder, Abrol, 3GPP2, and
Oyama.
Claim 50 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Feder, Abrol, 3GPP2, Oyama, and Narten. 3
3 We do not agree with Appellants that claim 50 stands allowable. See App.
Br. 4. We agree with the Examiner that the rejection of claim 50, previously
explained in the Non-Final Rejection, mailed April 9, 2014, was
3
Appeal2015-004076
Application 11/077 ,491
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed November 20, 2014), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.,"
filed February 24, 2015), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed
December 24, 2014) for their respective details.
ISSUES
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does the combination of 3GPP2-Nokia and 3GPP2 disclose or
suggest a first message from a first user equipment to a server, requesting at
least one of a home agent and a home address, the first message being sent
during a link control protocol phase of a point to point protocol prior to the
user equipment receiving one or more authentication challenges?
2. Does the combination of Feder, Abrol, and 3GPP2 disclose or
suggest a first message from a first user equipment to a server, requesting at
least one of a home agent and a home address, the first message being sent
during a link control protocol phase of a point-to-point protocol prior to the
user equipment receiving one or more authentication challenges?
inadvertently omitted from the Final Rejection, mailed July 31, 2014. We
note that the cover form for the Final Rejection includes claim 50 in its
listing of rejected claims. We further note that the Examiner never included
any language in an Office communication subsequent to April 9, 2014 to the
effect that the rejection of claim 50 was withdrawn, or that claim 50 was
now found to be allowable. See Ans. 21.
4
Appeal2015-004076
Application 11/077 ,491
ANALYSIS
REJECTION OVER 3GPP2-NOKIA AND 3GPP2
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that 3GPP2-Nokia in
combination with 3GPP2 fails to disclose a first message, which requests at
least one of a home agent and a home address, that is sent during a link
control protocol phase of a point to point protocol prior to user equipment
receiving one or more authentication messages, as claim 1 recites. See App.
Br. 17-19.
Appellants argue that the RADIUS request relied upon by the
Examiner as corresponding to the claimed first message "is indisputably sent
during a RADIUS phase" between the PDSN and the AAA server, so the
RADIUS access message cannot be part of the link control phase of a point-
to-point protocol. App. Br. 19 (emphasis omitted). In response to the
Examiner's questioning of the meaning of the term "RADIUS phase,"
Appellants insist that
the teaching of the instant specification [makes] clear that the
link control protocol phase occurs before and is thus a different
phase than the radius phase .... [A] skilled artisan upon reading
the instant specification would understand that the link control
protocol phase is for link control, while the radius phase is for
authentication with a AAA server, so the two phases are very
different and thus not interchangeable.
Reply Br. 11.
Appellants provide no citation to any section in the Specification that
defines or explains the term "radius phase." We have reviewed the
Specification, and we find no use of the phrase "radius phase," let alone any
explanation of its meaning. On the record before us, we find no evidence
persuasive to adopt Appellants' characterization of a "radius phase."
5
Appeal2015-004076
Application 11/077 ,491
Turning next to the teachings of the references, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that 3GPP2-Nokia discloses, in Figure 1, step a, "[t]he
MS [Mobile Station] performs LCP [Link Control Protocol] part of PPP
[Point-to-Point Protocol] with the PDSN [Packet Data Serving Node]. In
detail below," soon followed by step d, "[t]he PDSN sends a RADIUS
Access Request to the AAA server." 3GPP2-Nokia 4. These steps precede
step g, "[t]he PDSN extracts the EAP/AKA challenge from the message and
issues an EAP-Request/AKA Challenge to the MS." 3GPP2-Nokia 5.
Because step g is the step in which the user equipment receives an
authentication challenge, 3GPP2-Nokia discloses the claimed first message
being sent prior to such challenges (at step d), and during a link control
protocol phase.
We also agree with the Examiner's further finding that 3GPP2
discloses such a first message including at least one of a home agent and a
home address. See Ans. 26; 3GPP2, Simple IP and Mobile IP Access
Services, §§ 4.2.4.3, 4.4.1, 4.2.2.4. We are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument that 3GPP2 sends the cited message during a "RADIUS phase that
is not part of the link control protocol phase," for the same reasons
expressed supra concerning 3GPP2-Nokia.
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 21, 45, 47,
48, 59, and 60 over the combination of 3GPP2-Nokia and 3GPP2. We
sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection.
REJECTION OVER 3GPP2-NOKIA, 3GPP2, AND ABOBA
Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 62-64, which depend
from claim 1, suffers from the same deficiencies as the rejection of claim 1,
and that Aboba fails to cure the deficiencies of 3GPP2-Nokia and 3GPP2.
6
Appeal2015-004076
Application 11/077 ,491
As discussed supra, we do not agree that such deficiencies exist. As a result,
we sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 62-64 over 3GPP2-
Nokia, 3GPP2, and Aboba, for the same reasons given with respect to the
rejection of claim 1, supra.
REJECTION OVER FEDER, ABROL, AND 3GPP2
The Examiner admits that Feder does not explicitly disclose that a
first message is sent during a link control protocol phase of a point-to-point
protocol, prior to the user equipment receiving one or more authentication
challenges. Ans. 10. The Examiner further finds, however, that Abrol
discloses such a message, sent during a link control protocol phase of a point
to point protocol. Ans. 10. The Examiner equates the configuration request
IPCP C-Req, step (7) in Figure 4, comprising a request for an assignment of
a network address, with the claimed first message sent during a link control
protocol phase. Ans. 10; Abrol, Fig. 4, i-fi-f 16 and 39. The Examiner finds
that IP Control Protocol (IPCP) negotiation "is a type of link control phase
of a point to point protocol," and that "LCP negotiation and IPCP
negotiation both meet the requirements of the claim language." Ans. 27
(emphasis omitted).
We find that the Examiner erred in interpreting Abrol. Abrol states
that "UJ allowing completion of the LCP negotiation, the FA 26 initiates the
IPCP negotiation by transmitting an IPCP configuration request ... message
to the MT." Abrol i138 (emphasis added). We are persuaded by Appellants'
argument that Abrol's IPCP C-Req message is sent after the link control
protocol phase, not during the LCP phase, as required by the claims. 3GPP2
fails to remedy the deficiency of Abrol. The Examiner's contention that "IP
Control Protocol (IPCP) negotiation is a type of link control phase of a point
7
Appeal2015-004076
Application 11/077 ,491
to point to point protocol" (Ans. 27) lacks evidentiary support in the record.
Thus, we find that Abrol does not disclose sending the claimed "first
message" during a link control protocol phase of a point to point protocol.
Independent claims 21, 45, 47, 48, 48, 59, and 60 contain analogous
limitations. We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4--7,
9, 21, 24--27, 29, 45, 47, 48, 59, and 60 under§ 103 as being unpatentable
over Feder, Abrol, and 3GPP2. We do not sustain the rejection.
REJECTION OVER FEDER, ABROL, 3GPP2, AND OYAMA
Oyama fails to remedy the deficiencies of the combination of Feder,
Abrol, and 3GPP2, elaborated supra. Accordingly, we conclude that the
Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 3, 10-20, 23, 30-40, 49, 51,
and 52 under§ 103 as being unpatentable over Feder, Abrol, 3GPP2, and
Oyama. We do not sustain the rejection.
REJECTION OVER FEDER, ABROL, 3GPP2, OYAMA, AND NARTEN
Narten fails to remedy the deficiencies of the combination of Feder,
Abrol, 3GPP2, and Oyama, elaborated supra. Accordingly, we conclude
that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 50 under § 103 as being
unpatentable over Feder, Abrol, 3GPP2, Oyama, and Narten. We do not
sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of 3GPP2-Nokia and 3GPP2 discloses a first
message from a first user equipment to a server, requesting at least one of a
home agent and a home address, the first message being sent during a link
control protocol phase of a point-to-point protocol prior to the user
equipment receiving one or more authentication challenges.
8
Appeal2015-004076
Application 11/077 ,491
2. The combination of Feder, Abrol, and 3GPP2 does not disclose or
suggest a first message from a first user equipment to a server, requesting at
least one of a home agent and a home address, the first message being sent
during a link control protocol phase of a point to point protocol prior to the
user equipment receiving one or more authentication challenges.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 21, 45, 47, 48, 59, 60, and
62---64 is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 3-7, 9-20, 23-
27, 29--40, and 49-52 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9