Ex Parte Xu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 17, 2007

10084436 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 17, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ZHICHEN XU and LI XIAO
____________

Appeal 2007-3452
Application 10/084,436
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: December 17, 2007
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
Appeal 2007-3452
Application 10/084,436

A. INVENTION
The invention at issue involves providing privacy in a network system
(Spec. 1). In particular, a user requests data from a data source and
information responsive to the request is sent from the data source to the user
over a network path of multiple peer nodes. A mix including the identity of
each of the peer nodes in the network path is also generated for increasing
privacy of the user (Id. 2-3).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows.
1. A method of increasing peer privacy in a computer network
including peers operable to exchange information via the network, wherein
the peers include computing platforms, the method comprising:
receiving a request for data from a data requestor;
determining whether a data provider exists that stores the requested
data; wherein the data provider is a peer of the peers;
selecting a plurality of the peers to form a path between said data
provider and said data requestor, wherein said data provider and said data
requestor are the respective ends of said path;
generating a mix according to said path, wherein the mix includes an
anonymous identity of each of the plurality of peers in the path; and
transmitting said mix to said data provider.

C. REJECTION
Claims 1-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,862,223 (“Walker”) and U.S. Patent No.
6,460,036 (“Herz”).
2
Appeal 2007-3452
Application 10/084,436

II. ISSUES
Appellants assert that the combination of Walker and Herz fails to
disclose selecting a plurality of peers to form a path between a data provider
and a data requestor and generating a mix according to the path, as recited in
claims 1, 18, and 24, or the mix including an anonymous identity of each of
the plurality of peers in the path, and transmitting the mix to the data
provider, as recited in claims 1, 14, 18, 22, and 24 (App. Br. 15-19).
In response, the Examiner asserts that Walker discloses using an
“anonymous mix 180 as part of a protocol to maintain anonymity
between two people using a trusted third party” (Ans. 15), that “there has
to be some intermediate routers/peers that the path should follow before it
finally reaches its destination” (Id.), and that “the expert answer could come
from two different experts for one and the same request.” (Id. 15-16). The
Examiner further cites Herz at col. 37, ll. 45-52; col. 39, ll. 3-23; and col. 39,
l. 66 – col. 40, l. 6 and argues that Herz discloses “pre-selecting the peers to
be used in the mix, because the message is transmitted/returned along the
pseudonymous mix path specified by this return envelope set.” (Id. 18).
Upon review of the record, Herz discloses a pseudonym containing “a
unique string of bits . . . that is associated with a particular user” (col. 36, ll.
45-50) and “allows a service provider to communicate with users . . . while
at the same time remaining ignorant of the users’ true identities.” (Col. 31,
l. 65 – col. 32, l. 1). The user envelopes a message or request and sends the
enveloped message to a proxy server (col. 37, ll. 47-52 and col. 39, ll. 3-23).
The proxy server receives the enveloped message and creates a return
3
Appeal 2007-3452
Application 10/084,436

message along a pseudonymous mix path to the user (col. 39, l. 66 – col. 40,
l. 6).
The cited portions of Herz disclose enveloping a message in a
pseudonym and transmitting the enveloped message from a user to a proxy
server where the proxy server creates and returns a message to the user along
a pseudonymous mix path. Walker discloses an anonymous mix. We do not
find that the combination of Herz and Walker encompasses the features
recited in claims 1, 14, 18, 22, and 24. In particular, the combination of
Walker and Herz, while disclosing sending an enveloped message from a
user to a server, does not fairly teach or suggest a plurality of peers in the
path and generating a mix that includes an identity of each of the peers in the
plurality of peers in the path. The pseudonym of Herz is disclosed as
corresponding to the user rather than any peers in the path. Thus, we find
the combination of Herz and Walker fails to teach this feature.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 14, 18, 22, and 24,
and claims 2-13, 15-17, 19-21, 23, and 25-36, which depend therefrom.

III. ORDER
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-36 under § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED

clj
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
P.O. BOX 272400
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400
4