Ex Parte Fartmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2013

11547815 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2013)

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.
11/547,815 10/05/2006 Alfons Fartmann 2004P13969WOUS 7993
22116 7590 09/12/2013
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
SAMS, MATTHEW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2013 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 ALFONS FARTMANN, GUNTER SCHAFER,
JURGEN TOTZKE, and LARS WESTERHOFF
____________

Appeal 2011-005445
Application 11/547,815
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 16-32. Claims 1-15 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on September 5, 2013.
We reverse.
Appeal 2011-005445
Application 11/547,815

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method for providing a
mobile telecommunication service. Abstract. Mobile computers are
connected to an access network via access point connection computers, and
the access network is connected to a communication network via a network
connection computer. Id. In accordance with Appellants’ invention, the
network connection computer and the access point connection computers are
configured to execute packet filtering during the receipt and transmission of
messages for the secure protection of the communication system. Id.
Claims 16 and 23 are independent. Claim 16 is illustrative of the
invention (disputed limitation in italics):
16. A communication system for providing a mobile
telecommunication service, comprising:
a communication network configured to transmit
messages based upon an Internet protocol;
a mobile computer;
an access network for the mobile computer in which
messages are transferred using a multicast process;
a network connection computer that connects the access
network to the communication network;
a plurality of access points in the access network, each
access point having at least one respective access point
connection computer configured to establish a communication
connection with the mobile computer; and
Appeal 2011-005445
Application 11/547,815

3
an authentication verification computer for establishing
and managing trusted relationships between a plurality of the
communication elements;
wherein the network connection computer and the access
point connection computer are each configured to execute a
packet filtering method for security-related protection of the
communication system when receiving and transmitting
messages,
the packet filtering method executed by the access point
connection computers comprising:
determining a source address of a message, and
rejecting the message if that message has at least
one access point connection rejection characteristic, the
at least one access point connection rejection
characteristic being at least one of a source address
identifying a non-mobile communication element that
originates from a wireless link, message information that
indicates the message arrives at an upstream interface
and originates from a wireless link, and the message is
an advertisement message from an access point that
arrives at an input-side interface and originates from a
wireless link;
the packet filtering method executed by the network
connection computer comprising:
determining a source address of a message, and
Appeal 2011-005445
Application 11/547,815

4
rejecting the message if that message has at least
one network connection rejection characteristic, the at
least one network connection rejection characteristic
being at least one of the source address of the message
indicates the message is from a mobile computer, the
source address of the message indicates that the message
is from the access network, the source address of the
message indicates the message is a MOMBASA-internal
message, the message conforms to the Internet Group
Management Protocol, and the message conforms to the
Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode protocol; and
wherein the network connection computer and the
authentication verification computer are configured to execute
an overload control method by providing a communication
protocol for communication elements in order to prevent a
malfunction of the communication elements as a result of an
attack.
Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims:
Ginzboorg US 6,349,088 B1 Feb. 19, 2002
Kolls US 6,615,186 B1 Sept. 2, 2003
Hall US 2004/0122960 A1 June 24, 2004
Sami US 2004/0162992 A1 Aug. 19, 2004
Choyi US 7,339,928 B2 Mar. 4, 2008
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner has rejected claims 16-21, 23-25, 27, and 29-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choyi and Sami. Ans. 3-8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 22 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Choyi, Sami, and Ginzboorg. Ans. 8-9.
Appeal 2011-005445
Application 11/547,815

5
The Examiner has rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Choyi, Sami, and Hall. Ans. 9-10.
The Examiner has rejected claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Choyi, Sami, and Kolls. Ans. 10.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the combination of Choyi and Sami does not
teach or suggest access point connection computers executing a packet
filtering method that rejects messages having “at least one access point
connection rejection characteristic” as recited in independent claim 16.
1

App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 3. The claim specifically recites that the access point
connection rejection characteristic must be one of the following (emphases
added):
[(a)] a source address identifying a non-mobile communication
element that originates from a wireless link,
[(b)] message information that indicates the message arrives at
an upstream interface and originates from a wireless link, and
[(c)] the message is an advertisement message from an access
point that arrives at an input-side interface and originates from a
wireless link.

The Examiner relies on Sami for teaching the disputed limitation.
Ans. 4-5, 16-17. In particular, the Examiner cites paragraph 10 of Sami,
which provides (emphases added):
Packet filter rules are built for each interface available on a
firewall, and they control what data is allowed to flow there.
Packet filters can examine and make rules based on any or all of
the following: the IP protocol type such as TCP, UDP, ICMP,

1
Because this issue is dispositive, we need not reach Appellants’ additional
arguments.
Appeal 2011-005445
Application 11/547,815

6
the source IP address for any type of packet, optionally
including the port number, and the destination IP address for
any type of IP packet, optionally including the port number.
Packet filtering can also control the direction of packets going
to a specific interface and thus make different rules for packets
that are coming into an interface [and] those which are being
sent out of an interface.

Based on this passage, the Examiner finds that Sami teaches rejecting
messages having access point connection rejection characteristics (a) and
(b), as recited in claim 16. Ans. 5, 16-17. Notably, a message having one of
these two characteristics either has a source address (characteristic (a)) or
contains information (characteristic (b)) indicating that the message
originates from a wireless link.
Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that
Sami teaches or suggests the recited limitation. The Examiner relies on
Sami’s teaching that packets can be filtered “based on the source IP address
and the direction of packet flow.” Ans. 5. According to the Examiner, an
“IP address not only provides an identification of a specific device (either
source or destination), but also provides information with respect to the
device’s location and how to get to the location (i.e. via a specific
host . . . ).” Ans. 17. The Examiner further states that “[b]ased on the
information about the host, which is derived from an IP address, the
Examiner believes a message can be identified as from a wireless link (and
whether or not it should be from a wireless link).” Id.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided support
for his understanding that an IP address identifies whether a message
Appeal 2011-005445
Application 11/547,815

7
originates from a wireless link. See Reply Br. 2-3. While an IP address
uniquely identifies a device connected to a network,
2
the Examiner has not
explained sufficiently how the source IP address of a message can indicate
that the message originated from a wireless link. It follows that Sami’s
packet filtering based on source IP address does not teach or suggest a
packet filtering method that rejects messages originating from a wireless
link. Therefore, Sami cannot teach or suggest rejecting messages having
access point connection rejection characteristics (a) (“a source address
identifying a non-mobile communication element that originates from a
wireless link”) and (b) (“message information that indicates the message
arrives at an upstream interface and originates from a wireless link”), as
recited in claim 16.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of (i) claim 16, (ii) claim 23, which recites commensurate
limitations, and (iii) dependent claims 17-21, 24, 25, 27, and 29-31 for
similar reasons.
Regarding the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 22, 26, 28,
and 32, the Examiner has not shown that the additional cited references cure
the deficiencies noted above with respect to the independent claims.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 22, 26, 28,
and 32 for similar reasons.

2
See MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 287 (5th ed. 2002) (defining “IP
address” in relevant part as “[a] 32-bit (4-byte) binary number that uniquely
identifies a host (computer) connected to the Internet to other Internet hosts,
for the purposes of communication through the transfer of packets”).
Appeal 2011-005445
Application 11/547,815

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED

ELD