Ex Parte Yuan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 21, 2010

10642256 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte WEI YUAN
_____________

Appeal 2009-006649
Application 10/642,256
Technology Center 2400
______________

Decided: June 22, 2010
_______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and DEBRA K.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-006649
Application 10/642,256

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for communicating media across
firewalls. A trusted entity located outside of the firewall is used to create a
pinhole through the firewall. The trusted entity replaces a designation
address with a pinhole address so that the information can be transmitted
through the pinhole and to the communication device. See Spec: 1-11.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A packet-based communication network for communication
through a communication network gateway comprising:
a firewall on the communication network gateway for securing
communications to and from the network;
a communication device on the communication network
connected to the firewall by a communication link;
a trusted entity linked to the firewall by a communication link,
said link allowing information packets to be sent to a first
communication pinhole through the firewall to the communication
device; and
said trusted entity replacing an address designation in the
address header of one of said information packets with an address
designation for the first communication pinhole so the information
packet can be transmitted through said pinhole to said
communication device.

REFERENCES
Trossen US 2003/0212764 A1 Nov. 13, 2003
(filed May 10, 2002)
Wu US 2003/0212809 A1 Nov. 13, 2003
2
Appeal 2009-006649
Application 10/642,256

(filed May 9, 2002)

O’Keefe US 6,941,477 B2 Sep. 6, 2005
(filed Jul. 11, 2001)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Trossen in view of O’Keefe. Ans. 3-7.
Claims 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Trossen in view of O’Keefe and Wu. Ans. 7-8.

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections
Appellant argues on pages 6-11 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-4 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 is in error.
Appellant argues that references do not disclose a trusted entity, located
outside the communication network, which communicates information
through the firewall to a communication device, as disclosed in independent
claims 1, 8, and 15. App. Br. 6, 8-10; Reply Br. 2-4. Dependent claims 2-7,
9-14, and 16-20 are dependent upon claims 1, 8, and 15 and contain similar
limitations to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Thus, with respect to claims 1-20, Appellant’s contention presents us
with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Trossen in view of
O’Keefe discloses a trusted entity, located outside of the communication
3
Appeal 2009-006649
Application 10/642,256

network, which communicates information through the firewall to a
communication device?1

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a trusted entity linked to the firewall
by a communication link, said link allowing information packets to be sent
to a first communication pinhole through the firewall to the communication
device.” Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations. Claims 2-7,
9-14, and 16-20 depend upon independent claims 1, 8, and 15. The
Examiner finds that Trossen discloses “an entity linked to the firewall by a
communication link” and that O’Keefe discloses that the entity is a trusted
entity. Ans. 3-4. Additionally, the Examiner finds that the claim language
does not require that the entity be located outside of the firewall, only
connected to it. Ans. 9. However, Appellant argues that the claim limitation
requires that the firewall be located between the communication device and
the trusted entity and, as such, the entity is located outside of the
communication network. App. Br. 6, 8-9; Reply Br. 2-4. We agree with
Appellant. Claim 1 recites that the communication device is connected to a
firewall that has a pinhole. It is though this pinhole that the communication

1 Appellant makes additional arguments regarding claims 1-20. App. Br. 11-
15; Reply Br. 4-6. We do not reach these additional issues since the issue of
whether Trossen in view of O’Keefe discloses a trusted entity, located
outside of the communication network, which communicates information
through the firewall to a communication device, is dispositive of the case.
4
Appeal 2009-006649
Application 10/642,256

device is connected to a trusted entity. Therefore, the firewall must be
located between the communication device and the trusted entity.
Trossen discloses a mobile terminal (communication device) that is
connected to a new access router (a trusted entity). The Access router is
connected to a firewall with a pinhole that is connected to a new content
source. Page 3, ¶ [0024]. As such, Trossen does not disclose a firewall
located between the communication device and the trusted entity. The
additional teachings of O’Keefe and Wu do not make up for the deficiencies
noted above. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-20.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Trossen in view of O’Keefe
discloses a trusted entity, located outside of the communication network,
which communicates information through the firewall to a communication
device.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.

5
Appeal 2009-006649
Application 10/642,256

REVERSED

ELD

HEMINGWAY & HANSEN, LLP
1717 MAIN STREET
COMERICA BANK TOWER – SUITE 2500
DALLAS, TX 75201
6