Ex Parte Herbst

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2017

13466053 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 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.
13/466,053 05/07/2012 Thomas HERBST SILS/0015 (SSN-179-US) 2236
103346 7590 02/14/2017
Artegis Law Group, LLP/Silver Spring
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
MCLEOD, MARSHALL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/14/2017 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):
algdocketing @ artegislaw. com
kcruz @ artegislaw.com
mmccauley @ artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS HERB ST
Appeal 2016-003779
Application 13/466,0531
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is SILVER SPRING
NETWORKS, INC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003779
Application 13/466,053
INVENTION
Appellant’s application relates to secure device pairing initiation via a
wide area network. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject
matter and reads as follows:
1. A method of operating a communication device,
comprising:
by the communication device, receiving a handshake
initiation indication provided to the communication device via a
wide area network;
based at least in part on the received handshake initiation
indication, causing the communication device to enter a
handshake mode; and
based on the communication device having entered the
handshake mode, autonomously operating the communication
device in conjunction with a second device to configure the
communication device for secure communication with the
second device, wherein the communication device is further
configured for routing data between at least a third device and
the second device, via the wide area network and via the thus
configured secure communication between the communication
device and the second device.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3 and 6—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Salazar et al. (US 2012/0078548 Al;
published Mar. 29, 2012) (“Salazar”) and Ota et al. (US 2012/0124367 Al;
published May 17, 2012) (“Ota”).
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Salazar, Ota, and Forbes Jr. et al. (US
2011/0029655 Al; published Feb. 3, 2011) (“Forbes”).
2
Appeal 2016-003779
Application 13/466,053
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Salazar teaches or
suggests all of the recited limitations, except “by the communication device,
receiving a handshake initiation indication provided to the communication
device via a wide area network” and “based on the communication device
having entered the handshake mode, autonomously operating the
communication device in conjunction with a second device to configure the
communication device for secure communication with the second device,”
for which the Examiner relied on Ota. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Ota 40, 64).
Appellant contends the cited portions of Ota do not disclose initiating
or causing a handshake mode to be entered into, as claim 1 requires. App.
Br. 11. Appellant argues that “claim 1 explicitly recites that the handshake
initiation indication causes the communication device to enter a handshake
mode,” and that “Ota is entirely silent regarding the Channel Mask field
initiating or causing a handshake mode to be entered into.” Id. Appellant
further argues that the Channel Mask field in Ota is transmitted after the
disclosed handshake operations take place and, therefore, cannot cause those
operations to occur. Id. at 12.
3
Appeal 2016-003779
Application 13/466,053
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner found that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“handshake,” an artisan of ordinary skill would understand paragraph 64 of
Ota to teach establishing the communications channel between two entities
before messages can be transferred/received. Ans. 3. The Examiner further
found that Ota teaches that, in order for the devices to receive application
messages, a prior initiation or causing of a handshake mode to be entered
must have occurred. Id. (citing Ota 169). The Examiner explained that “the
exchange (i.e. transmission and receipt) of data between the two devices
disclosed in Ota is obviously due to the prior agreement (i.e. an initiation of
handshaking) of what channel to use to communicate messages (i.e. transmit
and receive data) that had to have been agreed to prior to the exchange of
data (i.e. transmission of said messages).” Id. at 3^4. Appellant does not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding what paragraphs 64
and 69 of Ota would have suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill. See
Reply Br. 4—5. Nor does Appellant persuasively argue that the Examiner’s
interpretation of “handshake” is unreasonable, overly broad, or inconsistent
with Appellant’s Specification.
Moreover, we note that Appellant’s Specification describes that
“[p]ush-button pairing of network devices is known,” and describes push­
button pairing as, “[w]hen a physical button is pressed by a user on both an
access point device and on a client device, the two devices may exchange
security keys so that the two devices are configured to communicate with
each other securely (such as using WPA-level security).” Spec. 12.
Appellant has not persuasively distinguished the initiating or causing a
handshake mode to be entered into, as required by claim 1, from the push-
4
Appeal 2016-003779
Application 13/466,053
button pairing that Applicant acknowledges was known in the art at the time
of Appellant’s invention.
Appellant further contends the cited portions of Ota do not teach or
suggest the limitation “receiving a handshake initiation indication provided
to the communication device via a wide area network,” recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 12. Appellant argues that, in Ota, the Channel Mask field “is
transmitted from the UESI [Utility Energy Services Interface] to the HAN
device via a home area network (HAN), not a wide area network (WAN).”
Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner found that
Salazar teaches that “[t]he data network 110 can be a wide area network
(WAN).” Ans. 4 (citing Salazar 135). The Examiner also found that Ota
teaches a WAN. Id. (citing Ota 130). The Examiner concluded that an
artisan of ordinary skill “would have found it obvious to utilize the different
networks disclosed within the references to communicate between devices.”
Id. In the Reply Brief, rather than rebut the Examiner’s findings based on
what the teachings of Salazar and Ota would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill, Appellant attacks Ota individually. See Reply Br. 1\ In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary
skill in the art.”). Appellant also points to advantages of “providing a
handshake initiation indication to a communication device via a WAN that
cannot be achieved via a HAN,” which does not directly address or
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings based on the prior art. Reply Br.
6. For example, Appellant does not argue that the claimed invention yields
5
Appeal 2016-003779
Application 13/466,053
unexpectedly improved properties or properties not present in the prior art
with regard to the use of a WAN.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Salazar and Ota teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 4 and 6, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons. App. Br. 14. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8, for which Appellant makes no additional
arguments. Id.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—8.
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