Ex Parte Thermond

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 9, 2011

10846049 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 9, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte JEFFREY L. THERMOND
_____________

Appeal 2009-011326
Application 10/846,049
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 21.
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed towards a method for operating a home
router to support Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). (Specification 4-5).
Appeal 2009-011326
Application 10/846,049

2

Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for operating a home wireless router comprising:

establishing a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) that supports
wireless communications within a WLAN service area;

establishing broadband communications via a broadband connection
with a VoIP service accumulator;

servicing a plurality of wireless terminals within the WLAN service
area, the plurality of wireless terminals including at least one Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) wireless terminal;

determining that a VoIP wireless terminal desires VoIP call servicing;

determining a WLAN encryption scheme supported by the VoIP
wireless terminal; and

servicing the VoIP call for the VoIP wireless terminal via the WLAN
and the broadband connection, wherein servicing includes:

using the WLAN encryption scheme supported by the VoIP wireless
terminal to protect the VoIP call as it is wirelessly serviced by the WLAN;
and

using a broadband encryption scheme supported by the broadband
connection to protect the VoIP call as it is serviced by the broadband
connection.

REFERENCES
HENDERSON US 6,647,109 B1 Nov. 11, 2003
KELLER US 2004/0133683 A1 July 8, 2004
ROGALSKI US 2004/0141484 A1 July 22, 2004
NAZARI US 2005/0025181 A1 Feb. 3, 2005
SINDHWANI US 2005/0190747 A1 Sep. 1, 2005
Appeal 2009-011326
Application 10/846,049

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15, 16, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sindhwani. Answer 3-7.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sindhwani in view of Rogalski. Answer
7-8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sindhwani in view of Henderson. Answer 8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 7, 10, 17 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sindhwani in view of Keller. Answer
8-9.
The Examiner has rejected claims 8, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sindhwani in view of Nazari. Answer
10-11.
ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 10 through 12 of the Brief2 that the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection is in error. These arguments present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Sindhwani teaches using an
encryption scheme to connect to an access point of a home
network, and thereby teach the claimed feature of using a WLAN
encryption scheme supported by the VoIP wireless terminal as
claimed?

1 “Answer” refers to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on January 12, 2009.
2 “Brief” refers to the Supplemental Appeal Brief dated October 29, 2008
and “Reply Brief” refers to the Reply Brief dated March 4, 2009.
Appeal 2009-011326
Application 10/846,049

4

Appellant asserts on pages 14 through 17 of the Brief, with respect to
the obviousness rejections of the dependent claims, that the additional
references cited do not make up for the deficiencies noted in the anticipation
rejection of the independent claims. We do not reach the issues presented by
these arguments because, for the reasons discussed infra, we find no error in
the anticipation rejection of the independent claims.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that Sindhwani teaches using
an encryption scheme to connect to an access point of a home network, and
thereby teach the claimed feature of using a WLAN encryption scheme
supported by the VoIP wireless terminal as claimed. 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 conclusion reached by the Examiner.
Appellant’s arguments center on the conclusion that paragraph 48 of
Sindhwani, which discusses using a WEP or WPA based encryption, is only
applicable to procedures followed outside the home or office WLAN
coverage area e.g. hotspots. Brief 11, Reply Brief 3. In response, the
Examiner finds that the portion of the authentication procedures discussed in
Sindhwani’s paragraph 48 is a procedure followed when the wireless
terminal enters a WLAN and, as such, also applies when the terminal enters
Appeal 2009-011326
Application 10/846,049

5

a home or office network (both of which are WLANs). Brief 12-13. We
concur with the Examiner’s finding as it is supported by ample evidence, the
teachings of Sindhwani identified by Appellant in the arguments do not
contradict this finding by the Examiner, but merely show that the procedure
is also used when the wireless terminal enters a hotspot. As Appellant’s
arguments have not convinced us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9 11, 15, 16,
and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We similarly, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections for the
same reasons as discussed with respect to the anticipation rejection.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 21 is
affirmed.

AFFIRMED

ke