Ex Parte Mahalingaiah

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2015

12421505 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/421,505
89955 7590
HONEYWELL/IPL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
0410912009
12/17/2015
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pradeep Mahalingaiah
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.
H0021731 (002.1301) 4620
EXAMINER
ELAHI, SHANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2015 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
docketing@ifllaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
~UNITED STATES PATENT AND TR~ADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRADEEP MAHALINGAIAH
Appeal2014-000441
Application 12/421,505
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-20, all claims currently pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's disclosure is directed to systems and methods to provide
"access to vehicle health maintenance information within a vehicle" and "to
Appeal2014-000441
Application 12/421,505
provide remote access to the health information [of a vehicle] by a plurality
of users." Abstract. Claims 1, 12, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below with emphasis added:
1. A system for securely accessing a source of data from a
vehicle, comprising:
an internet protocol (IP) network;
a remote communication device in communication with
the IP network, the remote communication device being
configured to transmit and receive data; and
a first intermediary computing device within the IP
network, the intermediary computing device preventing
communication between the remote communication device and
the source of the data, wherein the first intermediary computing
device is configured to allow communications between the
remote communication device and the source of the data when
the first intermediary computing device determines that a first
source internet protocol (SrcIP) address of the remote
communication device is an authorized first SrcIP address;
a second intermediary computing device within the
network and behind the first intermediary computing device,
the second intermediary computing device preventing
communication between the remote communication device and
the source of the data, wherein the second intermediary
computing device is configured to allow communications
between the remote communication device and the source of
the data when the second intermediary computing device
determines that a second Src!P address of the remote
communication device is an authorized second Src!P address,
the authorized second Src!P address being different from the
authorized first Src!P address.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 2, and 4--11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Conzachi (US 2007/0115938 Al; May 24, 2007)
2
Appeal2014-000441
Application 12/421,505
and Stallings et al., Cryptography and Network Security, ISBN 0-13-
091429-0, pp. 485-503 (hereinafter, "Stallings"). Final Act. 6.
Claims 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wu (US 7,852,861 B2; Dec. 14, 2010) and Stallings.
Final Act. 13.
ISSUES
Appellant's arguments present us with the following issues:
A. Did the Examiner err in rejecting independent claim 1, because the
cited references do not teach or suggest determining a second
SrcIP address of the remote communication device that is different
from a first SrcIP address, as claimed?
B. Did the Examiner err in rejecting independent claim 12, because
the cited references do not teach or suggest assigning a second
SrcIP address to the remote communication device, as claimed?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings
and conclusions (see Final Act. 2-21; Ans. 3-10) as our own, and we add
the following primarily for emphasis.
A. Claim 1
Appellant contends Stallings does not show "that a first and a second
SrcIP address for the same remote computing device are contained in the
original or the new IP header of Stallings. Or, that both the first and a
3
Appeal2014-000441
Application 12/421,505
second SrcIP addresses, if they exist, are determined by the firewall to be
valid." Br. 11.
The Examiner finds the recited use of a second SrcIP address is well
known in the art as evidenced by Stallings. See Ans. 5---6 (citing Stallings
Fig. 16.9). We agree, and find the recited "second SrcIP address of the
remote communication device" encompasses the outer IP header of Stallings
because, in Stallings, "the source address of the outer IP header is uniquely
linked to the original source address of the encapsulated packet by virtue of
the IPsec tunnel." Ans. 5, see also Stallings page 500 (describing a system
to "encapsulate the entire block ... with a new IP header that will contain
sufficient information for routing") and Stallings pages 493--494 (describing
the IP header has fields that include the Source Address).
Further, Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive as they focus on the
individual teachings of Stallings, and thus do not persuasively address the
combination of references on which the Examiner relies. 1 See Br. 10-13.
Rather, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one
of skill in the art to modify Conzachi' s system for remote communication
for aircraft maintenance (see Conzachi Figs. 1-7) with the teachings of
tunneling (using second IP address headers) in Stallings, in order to
determine the second SrcIP address as claimed (see Stallings page 490 and
Fig. 16.9). See Ans. 4--5 ("each firewall at either end of the IPsec tunnel [of
Stallings] performs both of the above determinations for inbound/ outbound
packets in a two-way IP communication"). The combination of Conzachi
1 "But one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (citations
omitted).
4
Appeal2014-000441
Application 12/421,505
and Stallings, as found by the Examiner, is no "more than the predictable use
of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR Int 'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and dependent claims 2 and 4--11 which are not argued separately.
See Br. 13.
B. Claim 12
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12, as
Stallings does not teach "the outer packet includes a source IP address that is
directly associated with the inner IP source address." Br. 13-14.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. First, we note Appellant's
argument is not commensurate with the claim, because claim 12 is silent
regarding a "directly associated" address. Second, for similar reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellant does not persuasively
rebut the Examiner's finding that Stallings teaches or suggests the second
SrcIP address within the meaning of claim 12. See Final Act. 13-15. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wu and Stallings
teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 12. See Ans. 8-9 (citing Wu
Figs. 6, 7, 9), see also Stallings page 489 (describing the Security Policy
Database entry defined by Source IP Address).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 12, and claims 13-20 which are not argued separately. See Br. 14.
5
Appeal2014-000441
Application 12/421,505
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--
20 is affirmed.
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
dw
6