10957534 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2013)

Ex Parte Marek

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 2013

10957534 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 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. 10/957,534 09/30/2004 James Allen Marek 04CR014/KE 7723 26383 7590 03/08/2013 ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 400 COLLINS ROAD NE M/S 124-323 CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52498 EXAMINER GOODARZI, NASSER MOAZZAMI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2013 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 JAMES ALLEN MAREK ____________ Appeal 2010-010191 Application 10/957,534 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 16-23. 2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Real Party in Interest is Rockwell Collins. 2 Claims 9-15 have been cancelled and are not on appeal. Appeal 2010-010191 Application 10/957,534 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to a method for maintaining a communications connection with data packet authentication. Abstract. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites: 1. A method for maintaining a communications connection comprising: receiving a data packet; determining a communication connection with which the received data packet is associated with; authenticating the data packet to the associated communications connection; and forwarding the data packet when it is authentic to the communications connection. REJECTIONS Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2004/0098512 A1). Ans. 3-4. 3 Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin and Hardjono (US 6,425,004 B1). Ans. 4-6. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin, Hardjono, and Buch (US 2003/0217165 A1). Ans. 6- 8. 3 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on Apr. 5, 2010. Appeal 2010-010191 Application 10/957,534 3 Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin, Hardjono, and Pietilainen (US 2005/0166267 A1). Ans. 10. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin and Ricciulli (US 6,816,910 B1). Ans. 8-9. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin and Cox (US 6,738,814 B1). Ans. 9. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin and Yang (US 2007/0274311 A1), Hardjono, and Pietilainen. Ans. 18-19. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin and Yang. Ans. 11-12. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin, Yang, and Hardjono. Ans. 12-14. Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin, Yang, Hardjono, and Buch. Ans. 14-16. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin, Yang, Hardjono, and Pietilainen. Ans. 17-18. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin, Yang, and Ricciulli. Ans. 16-17. ISSUE Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is in error because Lin does not disclose “authenticating the data packet to the associated communications connection” and “forwarding the data packet when it is authentic,” as recited Appeal 2010-010191 Application 10/957,534 4 in claim 1. 4 App. Br. 8-10. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection is flawed because the Examiner incorrectly interpreted the words “authentic” and “authenticating.” App. Br. 8-9. These arguments present the Board with the issue: did the Examiner correctly interpret the words “authentic” and “authenticating” and, as a result, correctly determine that Lin teaches the disputed claim elements? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) As support for the contention that the Examiner improperly interpreted “authentic” and “authenticating,” Appellant submits as evidence of the ordinary meaning of the term “authenticate” three definitions from Dictionary.com. App. Br. 8. In Appellant’s claim interpretation analysis, Appellant does not sufficiently analyze either the claim language or Appellant’s Specification. App. Br. 8-10. Thus, Appellant inappropriately relies on extrinsic evidence without sufficiently first analyzing the intrinsic evidence. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 4 Throughout this opinion were refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed on Jan. 18, 2010. Appeal 2010-010191 Application 10/957,534 5 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record . . . .”) Nonetheless, as noted by the Examiner, at least some of the definitions provided by Appellant are consistent with the Examiner’s finding that the disputed limitations are met by Lin. Ans. 20. For example, the Examiner correctly found that Lin teaches establishing that a data packet is genuine or valid before the packet is routed. Ans. 20. Appellant contends that of the three submitted Dictionary.com definitions, “the first two definitions are much closer to the ordinary meaning of the term when used in the context of computer networks and data communication . . . .” App. Br. 9. Appellant’s arguments as to which definitions comport with the ordinary meaning is unsupported by objective evidence. Nonetheless, as noted supra, the Examiner has shown that Lin teaches the disputed claim elements under the first of Appellant’s preferred definitions. Ans. 20. Regarding the second of Appellant’s preferred definitions, to the extent Appellant contends that the ordinary meaning of the term “authenticate” requires establishing “authorship or origin” App. Br. 8-9, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of representative claim 1. A claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim language itself. See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim 1 does not require authenticating authorship or origin as Appellant contends, but rather claim 1 recites “authenticating the data packet” and “forwarding the data packet when it is authentic” (emphasis added). The USPTO gives claims their “broadest reasonable interpretation.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, Appeal 2010-010191 Application 10/957,534 6 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). As a result, we decline to interpret either “authentic” or “authenticating” to require establishing authorship or origin. As additional supporting evidence, Appellant’s Specification provides an exemplary embodiment that is similar to the relevant excerpts of Lin’s disclosure that were cited by the Examiner see Ans. 20. In particular, Appellant’s Specification describes that authentication is performed using values stored in a “connection table.” Spec. ¶25. When a data packet is authenticated, the controller sends a command to “propagate the data packet . . . .” Spec. ¶25. In the event that the data packet cannot be authenticated, the controller instead generates a rouge received signal. Spec. ¶25. Dictionary.com is extrinsic evidence that may be informative, but should not be used, “for the purpose of varying or contradicting the terms of the claims.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 981 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(citations omitted). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of “authentic” and “authenticating” and with the Examiner’s determination that Lin discloses the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and, therefore, we sustain the rejection. The rejection of claims 2-8 and 16-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Regarding Appellant’s contentions with respect to the remaining claims 2-8 and 16-23, Appellant does not provide additional arguments with sufficient specificity so the remaining claims fall with claim 1. App. Br. 11- Appeal 2010-010191 Application 10/957,534 7 16. Thus, for the same reasons, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and stated conclusions and, therefore, we sustain the rejection. CONCLUSION Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Lin. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 1 and we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2-8 and 16-23, falling therewith. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 and 16-23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD