10970137 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2010)

Ex Parte Gustave et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 22, 2010

10970137 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2010)

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. 10/970,137 10/22/2004 Christophe Gustave ALC 3152 5686 7590 09/22/2010 KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. Suite 240 1725 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER HO, HUY C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2617 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/22/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHE GUSTAVE, VINOD KUMAR CHOYI, and FREDERIC GARIADOR ____________________ Appeal 2009-007807 Application 10/970,1371 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 1 The real party in interest is Alcatel-Lucent. 2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-007807 Application 10/970,137 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appellants’ invention relates to a method for authenticating peer mobile network nodes for establishing a secure peer-to-peer communications context in an ad-hoc network. At low bandwidth, wireless infrastructure network entities are accessed for short time duration to obtain cryptographic information regarding a peer mobile network node. Once a wireless network node receives the cryptographic information regarding the peer mobile network node, the peer network node is challenged with a challenge phrase derived from the cryptographic information. Once a valid response is received, the secure peer-to-peer communications link is established. (Abstract). Claim 18 is exemplary: 18 A mobile network node adhering to a wireless communications protocol for connection to a peer mobile network node in an ad-hoc network, the mobile network node comprising: a. an authentication information cache for caching authentication information regarding a plurality of mobile network nodes expected to require local authentication; and b. authentication information serving means for serving a pair of mobile network nodes of the plurality of mobile network nodes with authentication information for establishing at least one cross-authenticated secure peer-to-peer communications context, between the pair of mobile network nodes. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Naghian US 2004/0179502 A1 Sep. 16, 2004 2 Appeal 2009-007807 Application 10/970,137 Moloney US 2005/0266798 A1 Dec. 1, 2005 Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Moloney. Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moloney in view of Naghian. Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed July 28, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed December 24, 2008), for their respective details. ISSUES Appellants contend that, since the contact directory of Moloney merely stores an authorization identifier with a contact entry for all devices with which the node has already communicated, Moloney does not disclose an “authentication information cache for caching authentication information regarding a plurality of mobile network nodes expected to require local authentication” (App. Br. 7-8). Appellants argue that the combination of Moloney and Naghian does not disclose that authentication information is received directly from the home location register (App. Br. 10 and 12). Appellants assert further that Naghian does not disclose that a first mobile node operating in a first protocol may connect to a second mobile node operating in a second protocol, as recited in claim 14 (App. Br. 14). Appellants’ contentions present us with the following three issues: 1. Does Moloney disclose “authentication information cache for caching authentication information regarding a plurality of mobile network nodes expected to require local authentication”? 3 Appeal 2009-007807 Application 10/970,137 2. Does the combination of Moloney and Naghian disclose “the authentication information received directly from a home environment associated with the peer mobile network node”? 3. Does the combination of Moloney and Naghian disclose a first mobile node operating in a first wireless protocol may connect to a second mobile node operating in a second wireless protocol? FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. The Invention 1. Given the scenario where mobile network users attend a retreat outside of the coverage area of any wireless infrastructure, mobile network node 203 retrieves cryptographic information regarding mobile network nodes 202 expected to be present at the retreat. Mobile network node 203 caches the cryptographic information for the purposes of providing home environment 210 functionality. Accordingly, the mobile network node 203 operates as a “floating” Authentication Center (AuC) 210, providing each mobile network nodes 202 within reach access to the cached cryptographic information (Spec. ¶ [39]). Moloney 2. Moloney discloses that when devices 104 and 106 are within a wireless communication range of each other, an insecure link or a secure link 102 may be established. Wireless mobile device 106 includes a contact directory 610 having group association 612 and a security association 614 entries for each mobile device in the network. The group association 612 4 Appeal 2009-007807 Application 10/970,137 may be used to lookup policies in connection policies 616. When a secured channel has failed to be established due to lack of security information corresponding to the contact entry or lack of initialization, the user is queried with options as to whether to enable a secured link based upon connection policies (Figs. 6, 9, ¶¶ [0048], [0063], [0064], and [0086]-[0089]). Naghian 3. Naghian discloses that a trunk node 101 collects International Mobile Subscriber Identities (IMSIs) from a set of ad-hoc nodes 102 (step 300). Each of the ad-hoc nodes 102 is served over one or more hops, depending upon the number of other ad-hoc nodes 102 that exist between the trunk node 101 and the particular ad-hoc node. The trunk node 101 maintains a node-specific record for each of the served ad-hoc nodes 102. After a successful authentication, the ad-hoc IMSI set collected at step 300 is sent from the trunk node to the Authentication Centre (AuC)/ Home Location Register (HLR) 225 of the Core Network (CN) (step 304). The AuC/HLR 225 generates an authentication vector for each of the IMSIs containing a network challenge (RAND), an expected user response (XRES), a network authentication token (AUTN), a cipher key (CK), and an integrity key (IK). Within a user authentication request, the RAND and AUTN related to each ad-hoc IMSI are returned to the trunk node (step 306). Trunk node 101 then stores (step 307) and forwards each parameter pair (RAND/AUTN) to the corresponding ad-hoc node 102 (step 308) (Figs. 2 and 3; ¶¶ [0042] – [0044]). 4. Naghian discloses an ad-hoc trunk node may include an interface 611 that offers connectivity to a GSM or UMTS network, while interface [610] offers connectivity to a WLAN network (Fig. 6; ¶ [0057]). 5 Appeal 2009-007807 Application 10/970,137 PRINCIPLES OF LAW Anticipation Anticipation pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 102 is established when a single prior art reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Obviousness On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. ANALYSIS Claim 18 Independent claim 18 recites “authentication information cache for caching authentication information regarding a plurality of mobile network nodes expected to require local authentication.” We do not consider Appellants’ arguments, outlined supra, to be persuasive to show Examiner error. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Moloney teaches a mobile device which comprises a storage memory for providing group authentication contact information to any other devices located within a proximity serving area for a social event (Ans. 11-12; FF 2). Moloney discloses that when devices 104 and 106 are 6 Appeal 2009-007807 Application 10/970,137 within wireless communication range of each other, an insecure link or a secure link 102 may be established (FF 2). When a secured channel has not been established due to lack of security information corresponding to the contact entry or lack of initialization, the user is queried with options as to whether to enable a secured link based upon connection policies (FF 2). Thus, similar to the Appellants’ scenario where the mobile network users attend a retreat, cryptographic information is retrieved and cached within wireless device B (FF 1 and 2). The Specification provides that mobile network node 203 forwards to each mobile network node 202 within reach access to the cached cryptographic information (FF 1). Similarly, when devices 104 and 106 disclosed in Moloney are within a wireless communication range of each other, a secure link 102 maybe established at anytime since the user is queried if there is a lack of security information in the contact directory 610 (FF 2). Therefore, we find that Moloney discloses the “authentication information cache for caching authentication information regarding a plurality of mobile network nodes expected to require local authentication.” As a result, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 18. Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13 Independent claims 1 and 8 recite “the authentication information received directly from a home environment associated with the peer mobile network node.” We consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show Examiner error. Specifically, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Naghian discloses authentication information received directly from a home environment associated with the peer mobile network node (Ans. 5-6). 7 Appeal 2009-007807 Application 10/970,137 Although Naghian discloses that authentication information is received directly from the Authentication Center/ Home Location Register (AuC/HLR) 225, Naghian is silent as to the authentication information being directly sent from the AuC/HLR 225 to the wireless mobile network nodes 102 (FF 3). Naghian discloses that AuC/HLR 225 generates an authentication vector for each of the International Mobile Subscriber Identities (IMSIs) containing a network challenge (RAND), an expected user response (XRES), a network authentication token (AUTN), a cipher key (CK), and an integrity key (IK) (FF 3). The RAND and the AUTN related to each ad-hoc IMSI are returned to the trunk node (FF 3). The trunk node 101 forwards each parameter pair (RAND/AUTN) to the corresponding ad-hoc node 102 (FF 3). Therefore, the delivery of cryptographic information is sent to each node indirectly through trunk node 101 and not directly from AuC/HLR 225 (FF 3). We find that the Examiner has not established the prima facie obviousness of the claims, because the combination of Moloney and Naghian does not disclose that “the authentication information [is] received directly from a home environment associated with the peer mobile network node.” As a result, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 and that of dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, and 13. Claims 14-17 We select claim 14 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). 8 Appeal 2009-007807 Application 10/970,137 Independent claim 14 recites that a first mobile node operating in a first wireless protocol may connect to a second mobile node operating in a second wireless protocol. We do not consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show Examiner error. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Naghian discloses that various interface protocols are used between the trunk node 101 and network nodes 102 (Ans. 5; FF 4). Naghian discloses an ad-hoc trunk node may include an interface 611 that offers connectivity to a GSM or UMTS network, while interface [610] offers connectivity to a WLAN network (FF 4). We find that the Examiner has established the prima facie obviousness of the claims, because the combination of Moloney and Naghian discloses a decoder that a first mobile node operating in a first wireless protocol may connect to a second mobile node operating in a second wireless protocol. As a result, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of representative claim 14 and that of dependent claims 15-17. CONCLUSIONS Moloney discloses “authentication information cache for caching authentication information regarding a plurality of mobile network nodes expected to require local authentication.” The combination of Moloney and Naghian does not disclose “the authentication information received directly from a home environment associated with the peer mobile network node.” 9 Appeal 2009-007807 Application 10/970,137 The combination of Moloney and Naghian discloses that a first mobile node operating in a first wireless protocol may connect to a second mobile node operating in a second wireless protocol. ORDER The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-18 is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13 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)(1)(iv). 10 Appeal 2009-007807 Application 10/970,137 AFFIRMED-IN-PART ELD KRAMER & AMADO, P.C. SUITE 240 1725 DUKE STREET ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 11