Ex Parte Fang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

13153290 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

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.
13/153,290 06/03/2011 Wen Fang 11-0289-US-NP 8662
11670 7590 02/23/2017
The Boeing Company c/o Vista IP Law Group LLP
100 Spectrum Center Drive
Suite 900
Irvine, CA 92618
EXAMINER
AJIBADE AKONAI, OLUMIDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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):
c ad @ viplawgroup .com
patentadmin @ boeing. com
j 11 @ viplawgroup .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEN FANG
Appeal 2016-0055211
Application 13/153,290
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005521
Application 13/153,290
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—66, which are all the pending claims.
App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellant’s invention is directed to “[a] system, method, and
apparatus for establishing communications with a secure network using a
non-secure mobile device operating in a non-secure network.” Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below, with emphasis added to the
disputed element:
1. A method for establishing communications with a secure
network using a non-secure mobile device operating in a non-
secure network, the method comprising:
communicating a mobile device identifier to an
authentication server in the secure network;
validating, with a mobile device manager in conjunction
with the authentication server in the secure network, the mobile
device identifier; and
establishing a direct secure connection between the non-
secure mobile device and the secure network via an access
router,
wherein communications route through the access
router only after validation of the mobile device identifier.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2016-005521
Application 13/153,290
B. The Rejections on Anneal
The Examiner rejects claims 1—6, 9-25, 52—56, 59-63, and 66 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shuqair (US 2008/0184123 Al;
July 31, 2008), in view of Etchegoyen (US 2009/0292816 Al; Nov. 26,
2009), and further in view of Jukic (US 2010/0299517 Al; Nov. 25, 2010).
Final Act. 3.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shuqair, in view of Etchegoyen, further in view of Jukic,
and further in view of Buer (US 2009/0023423 Al; Jan. 22, 2009). Final
Act. 22.
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shuqair, in view of Etchegoyen, further in view of Jukic,
and further in view of Hammad (US 2009/0187492 Al; July 23, 2009).
Final Act. 23.
The Examiner rejects claims 30-35, 38-45, 47, 48, and 66 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shuqair, in view of Jazra
(US 2008/0268815 Al; Oct. 30, 2008), further in view of Etchegoyen, and
further in view of Jukic. Final Act. 23.
The Examiner rejects claims 28, 29, 50, and 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Joubert (US 2010/0146500 Al;
June 10, 2010), in view of Kao (US 2012/0096259 Al; Apr. 19, 2012),
further in view of Etchegoyen, and further in view of Jukic. Final Act. 29.
The Examiner rejects claims 57 and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shuqair, in view of Etchegoyen, further in view of Jukic,
and further in view of Buer. Final Act. 33—34.
3
Appeal 2016-005521
Application 13/153,290
The Examiner rejects claims 36 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shuqair, in view of Jazra, further in view of Etchegoyen,
further in view of Jukic, and further in view of Buer. Final Act. 34.
The Examiner rejects claims 58 and 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shuqair, in view of Etchegoyen, further in view of Jukic,
and further in view of Hammad. Final Act. 35.
The Examiner rejects claims 37 and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shuqair, in view of Jazra, further in view of Etchegoyen,
further in view of Jukic, and further in view of Hammad. Final Act. 35—36.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Jukic does not teach communications routing
through an access router only after validation of a mobile device identifier
because, in Jukic, communications always route through the routing device.
See App. Br. 16—17; see also Reply Br. 2—6. In other words, Appellant
argues, Jukic teaches a gateway is connected to a remote client terminal via
the routing device and, thus, Jukic teaches all communications from the
remote client, including communications for authentication that are sent to
the gateway, route through the routing device. See App. Br. 16—17; see also
Reply Br. 2—6.
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. The Examiner
found that independent claim 1 was obvious in light of the combination of
three cited references: Shuqair, Etchegoyen, and Jukic. See Final Act. 3—6.
The test for obviousness is not whether a secondary reference’s features can
be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but rather
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
4
Appeal 2016-005521
Application 13/153,290
those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). We agree with the Examiner that Jukic teaches authentication (i.e.,
the claimed “validation”) of a remote client terminal’s user identification
before granting the remote client terminal access to a routing device (i.e., the
claimed “access router”) for routing communications to devices within a
network. See Ans. 4 (citing Jukic ]Hf 54, 55, 194). Even assuming arguendo
that Appellant is correct that Jukic fails to disclose all communications are
routed through the routing device only after authentication of the user
identification, Jukic does teach that certain communications (i.e.,
communications between the remote client terminal and the network
established over a direct secure connection between the remote client
terminal and the network via the routing device) are routed through the
routing device only after authentication of the user identification. See Jukic
1194. The Examiner relies on that particular teaching from Jukic, not
Jukic’s additional teaching related to inbound yet-to-be-authenticated
communications sent to the gateway. See Ans. 2—3; In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d
1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“a determination of obviousness based on
teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
substitution of elements”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Jukic
teaches or suggests “wherein communications route through the access
router only after validation of the mobile device identifier,” as recited in
independent claim 1, and similarly recited in the other independent claims.
See, e.g., Final Act. 6.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of the cited references teaches all the claim elements of
independent claims 1, 11, 17, 18, 28, 30, 40, 50, 52, and 59. Accordingly,
5
Appeal 2016-005521
Application 13/153,290
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 17, 18, 28,
30, 40, 50, 52, and 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We further sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 2—10, 12—16, 19-27, 29, 31—39, 41—49, 51,
53—58, and 60—66, not argued separately. See App. Br. 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—66 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
6