11316150 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2014)

Ex Parte Norden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 10, 2014

11316150 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/316,150 12/22/2005 Samphel Norden Guo 15-5 (LCNT/127835) 1792 46363 7590 02/10/2014 WALL & TONG, LLP/ ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. 25 James Way Eatontown, NJ 07724 EXAMINER VOSTAL, ONDREJ C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2453 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/10/2014 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 SAMPHEL NORDEN and KATHERINE H. GUO ____________________ Appeal 2011-011339 Application 11/316,150 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011339 Application 11/316,150 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method, system and computer readable storage medium for providing network-based security in a network including a coordinator access point. Claims 1, 7, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis added: 1. A method for providing network-based security in a network including a coordinator access point (CAP), a set of candidate coordinator nodes and a plurality of clients, the method comprising: moving a coordinator functionality between members of the set of candidate coordinator nodes without notifying the clients, wherein the coordinator functionality is scheduled to be moved between members of the set of candidate coordinator nodes periodically, each of the candidate coordinator nodes capable of hosting a coordinator functionality, the coordinator functionality adapted for handling messages associated with the clients; and wherein the coordinator access point (CAP) enables communication between clients and coordinators and dynamically implements the network security measures including acting as a trusted intermediary between client and coordinator node. Appeal 2011-011339 Application 11/316,150 3 PRIOR ART Mahany US 2002/0123345 A1 Sep. 5, 2002 Kitchin US 2004/0024871 A1 Feb. 5, 2204 Overton US 2004/0242321 A1 Dec. 2, 2004 Shigei US 2005/0185633 A1 Aug. 25, 2005 Hong US 2005/0237993 A1 Oct. 27, 2005 Green US 2006/0059565 A1 Mar. 16, 2006 Filz US 2006/0294413 A1 Dec. 28, 2006 Decorte US 2007/0197877 A1 Aug. 23, 2007 Chen US 7,367,888 B1 May 6, 2008 Dorner US 7,417,959 B1 Aug. 26, 2008 Hayashi US 2008/0288878 A1 Nov. 20, 2008 GROUNDS OF REJECTION 1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Filz, Mahany, and Green. 2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Filz, Mahany, Green, and Overton. 3. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Filz, Mahany, Green, Overton, and Chen. 4. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Filz, Mahany, Green, and Decorte. 5. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Filz, Mahany, Green, Hong, and Hayashi. 6. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Filz, Mahany, and Kitchin. 7. Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatenble over Filz, Mahany, Kitchin, Overton, and Chen. Appeal 2011-011339 Application 11/316,150 4 8. Claims 10, 11, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Filz, Mahany, Kitchin, and Shigei. 9. Claim 12-14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Filz, Mahany, Kitchin, Shigei, and Dorner. 10. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Filz, Mahany, Kitchin, and Overton. OPINION Claims 1, 17, and 17 Independent claims 1, 7, and 17 each require the limitation that “the coordinator functionality is scheduled to be moved between members of the set of candidate coordinator nodes periodically.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that Mahany discloses this limitation. Ans. 6, 37-39 (citing Mahany paras. [0027], [0106], and [0252]). In these paragraphs Mahany states: In the personal LAN, the beacons are provided on a periodic basis with at least two of the plurality of wireless devices sharing beaconing responsibilities. The beaconing responsibilities may be shared on a round robin basis or may be shared according to the operating characteristics of the wireless devices with some wireless devices assuming greater beaconing responsibilities than other of the wireless devices. (Mahany para. [0027]); The lost devices, the printer 609 and the PDA 611, are expected to wait on one of the control channels. When they receive the beacon, they proceed to resync to the information in the beacon and thus are recovered. If the printer 609 and the PDA 611 are separated and are out of the range of the personal LAN 600, they will not receive beacons from the network Appeal 2011-011339 Application 11/316,150 5 coordinator 605 and the data collection device 607. They progress very slowly through the control channels, waiting for beacons. However, the printer 609 and the PDA 611 continue to transmit their beacons, and continue to receive each others [sic] beacons. When they fail to see any beacons from the network coordinator 605 for a predetermined number of beacon transmission cycles, the printer 609 and the PDA 611 communicate with each other to identify a replacement for the network coordinator. For example, the printer 609 and the PDA 611 may elect the printer 609 to become the network coordinator and establish the personal LAN 613 for their continued operation. (Mahany para. [0106])(emphasis added); and The network coordinator will keep the network synchronized by periodically transmitting Beacon frames. These frames include information about network time, dwell time and next beacon time to allow a receiver to set its clock to that in the beacon and then sleep until the next beacon with the receiver off to save power. Since a system clock with an accuracy of greater than 50 parts per million is unreasonable to assume, the beacon also includes a count of beacons that have been sent to allow the receiver to occasionally take snapshots of its own clock and then some large number of beacons intervals later, sample the beacon count again and determine the station clock's relative accuracy versus the network clock. Periodic corrections can then be applied. Mahany para. [0252]. Appellants point out that in Mahany “the change in assignment of a coordinator function . . . is based entirely upon the failure of a coordinating device or coordinating entity or cluster leader, etc. to perform its function.” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2-3 (quoting Mahany [0106]). Based on this evidence, Appellants argue that Mahany “fails to teach or suggest ‘moving a coordinator functionality . . .’ and in particular ‘wherein the coordinator Appeal 2011-011339 Application 11/316,150 6 functionality is scheduled to be moved between members of the set of candidate coordinator nodes periodically . . . .’” Id. (emphasis added). Appellant’s argument is persuasive. None of these paragraphs cited by the Examiner support the Examiner’s finding that Mahany discloses the limitation that “the coordinator functionality is scheduled to be moved between members of the set of candidate coordinator nodes periodically.” Ans. 6, (citation omitted). Rather, in the portions of Mahany relied on by the Examiner, the network coordinator is replaced when it is determined to have failed. This failure of the network coordinator is not disclosed to be “scheduled,” and hence, its replacement is not “scheduled” but dependent on this failure even occurring in the first place. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, and 17. Claims 2-6, 8-16, and 18-20 Claims 2-6, 8-16, and 18-20 depend from claim 1, 7, or 17 and are rejected based on the combined teachings of Filz, Mahany, and one or more of Green, Overton, Chen, Decorte, Hong, Hayashi, Kitchen, Shigei, and Dorner. The Examiner’s application of these references does not cure the deficiencies in Mahany with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 7, and 17, as discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2- 6, 8-16, and 18-20. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 is REVERSED. REVERSED rvb