Ex Parte Xu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2016

12842279 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/842,279 07/23/2010
83719 7590 02/09/2016
AT & T Legal Department - FKM
AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT,
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING ROOM 2A-207
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gang Xu
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.
2009-1215 (40147/16301) 3740
EXAMINER
TRAN, ELLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2016 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 GANG XU, CRISTIAN BORCEA, and
LIVIU IFTODE
Appeal2014-001609
Application 12/842,279
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and NATHAN A. ENGELS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-001609
Application 12/842,279
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
storing a set of instructions executable by a processor, the set of
instructions performing a method comprising:
receiving a request from a node to join a trusted ad hoc
network;
authenticating the node to join the trusted ad hoc network,
the authentication performed based on a verification that the
node will comply with a security policy of the trusted ad hoc
network;
sending, to the node, a verification that the trusted ad hoc
network complies with the security policy;
adding the node to the trusted ad hoc network;
determining whether a further trusted ad hoc network
complies with the security policy;
if the further trusted ad hoc network complies with the
security policy, sending an invitation to a further node of the
further trusted ad hoc network;
receiving, from the further node, an authentication that the
further node belongs to the further trusted ad hoc network; and
adding the further node to the trusted ad hoc network.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 20 as obvious in view of
Wallentin (US 2008/0261580 Al; pub. Oct. 23, 2008) and Lindstrom (US
2009/0168696 Al; pub. July 2, 2009); claims 3-5 and 14--16 as obvious in
view ofWallentin, Lindstrom, and Touboul (US 2007 /0199060 Al; pub.
Aug. 23, 2007); and claims 8-11 and 19 as obvious in view of Wallentin,
Lindstrom, and Fukuzawa (US 2005/0215234 Al; pub. Sept. 29, 2005).
2
Appeal2014-001609
Application 12/842,279
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of Wallentin and Lindstrom fails
to teach or suggest "sending, to the node, a verification that the trusted ad
hoc network complies with the security policy" as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 4--5. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner "concedes" that
Wallentin does not disclose the disputed limitation (App. Br. 4 (citing Final
Act. 3)) and that Lindstrom discloses sending to a node parameters
"relat[ing] to data transfer protocols and quality of service settings," not
parameters relevant to security policies (App. Br. 5 (citing Lindstrom i-fi-f 11,
21, 24, 29-34, 51)); Reply Br. 4).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive and agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusions. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Lindstrom teaches or suggests that including information
relating to security policies with the verification sent to a node in the ad hoc
network. Ans. 9 (citing Lindstrom Fig. 3, i-fi-f 16, 20, 32, 33, 39--40, 56, 62,
and 64--67). In addition, the Examiner's rejection cites Wallentin as the
primary teaching of the security policies enforced before allowing a node to
join an ad hoc network (Final Act. 3 (citing Wallentin i-fi-181-82); Ans. 9-10
(citing Wallentin i-f 80)) and cites Lindstrom as an express disclosure of
sending to a node verification of an ad hoc network's parameters (Final Act.
3). Further, the Examiner concludes, and we agree, that it would have been
obvious to include Wallentin's security policies with the parameters
included in a verification sent to a node such as the verification taught by
Lindstrom. Final Act. 3 (citing Lindstrom i-fi-130, 33, 51); Ans. 9 (citing
Lindstrom Fig. 3, i-fi-f 16, 20, 32, 33, 39--40, 56, 62, and 64--67).
3
Appeal2014-001609
Application 12/842,279
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that Lindstrom fails to
disclose security parameters and agree with the Examiner that Lindstrom's
disclosure of a "policy unit" that is "responsible for authorising
communication sessions" would have taught or suggested the claimed
security policies. Lindstrom ,-r 33. Additionally, Appellants' arguments fail
to substantively address what the combined teachings of Wallentin and
Lindstrom would have taught or suggested to a person of ordinary skill and
are therefore unpersuasive. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking
prior art references individually when a rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well
as the rejections of claims 2-20, for which Appellants rely on the arguments
advanced for claim 1. See App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 5-8.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4