Ex Parte Barber

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2018

13717423 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/717,423 12/17/2012 74365 7590 12/04/2018 Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC 17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75252 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Phillip Barber 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. HW 83305230US02 8695 EXAMINER SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2018 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): uspatent@huawei.com docketing@slatermatsil.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHILLIP BARBER Appeal2017-003325 Application 13/717,423 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. The claims are directed to a system and method for concurrent address allocation and authentication. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for coordinating network entry of a device, the method comprising: 1 Appellant indicates that the real party in interest is Future Wei Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-003325 Application 13/717,423 authenticating, by a controller, in a first process, the device coupled to the controller; allocating, by the controller, in a second process, an address for the device, the first process performed independently of the second processes, and the first process performed in parallel with the second process; and completing, by the controller, the network entry of the device upon successful completion of authenticating the device and allocating the address for the device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Pecen et al. Choe et al. Kelly et al. Zha Haverinen et al. US 6,925,095 B2 US 7,558,866 B2 US 7,639,681 B2 US 7,934,004 B2 US 8,045,530 B2 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Aug. 2, 2005 July 7, 2009 Dec. 29, 2009 Apr. 26, 2011 Oct. 25, 2011 Claims 1, 4--9, 11-13, 16-19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zha in view of Choe. Claims 2 and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zha and Choe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pecen. Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zha, Choe, and Pecen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Haverinen. 2 Appeal2017-003325 Application 13/717,423 Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zha and Choe as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kelly. ANALYSIS In the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds that Zha does not teach allocating, by the controller, in a second process, an address for the device, the first process performed independently of the second process, and the first process performed in parallel with the second process. However, the Examiner finds Choe does teach allocating, by the controller, in a second process, an address for the device, the first process performed independently of the second process, and the first process performed in parallel with the second process. (Final Act. 7.) The Examiner relies upon the Choe reference for performing the authentication and approval processes in parallel. Appellant contends that Zha and Choe, whether taken alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest "authenticating, by a controller, in a first process, the device coupled to the controller." (App. Br. 5.) The Examiner finds that the Zha reference teaches that a service providing node receives an authentication request and is the controller for the authenticator and "the controller controls the establishment of a pathway between the access node and the edge node of the network for the user" (Ans. 13). Appellant contends that the relied upon portions of Choe: [D]oes not teach or suggest performing authentication and allocating an address in parallel and independently of each other. Rather, Choe discloses providing "temporary" configuration 3 Appeal2017-003325 Application 13/717,423 information to a client before authentication. Choe discloses that the configuration information may include an IP address. Once the temporary configuration information is provided, then authentication is performed. The two processes are not performed in parallel. Furthermore, the two processes are not independent as the authentication process depends on the results of the temporary configuration and cannot be completed until the temporary configuration information is provided. Additionally, the final configuration is dependent upon the authentication being completed. (App. Br. 6-7.) Appellant contends that the relied upon portions of Choe teach two methods for authentication and configuration. The first process requires temporary authentication information in order to be completed, after which the final configuration process starts and is completed. The second process requires the authentication process is started and completed before the configuration process starts. As a result, neither process in Choe teaches or suggests that the authentication and allocation processes are independent and performed in parallel. (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3.) In response to Appellant's arguments regarding the independent and parallel claimed features, the Examiner identifies Figures 3A and 4A where the configuration client requests from the secure configuration server a set of two configuration parameters. The Examiner further identifies that [i]n some embodiments (see specifically step 400 of FIG. 4a), the configuration client 106 does not wait for the secure configuration server 104 to request authentication; instead, the configuration client 106 begins the authentication process concurrently with its initial configuration request. This meets part of applicant's argued claim limitation of" ... and the first process is performed in parallel with the second process." 4 Appeal2017-003325 Application 13/717,423 (Ans. 14) (emphasis omitted.) We note that the configuration client rather than the controller/server performs the recited function and therefore does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation, "by the controller." With regards to the claimed "the first process performed independently of the second processes," the Examiner provides a new citation to the background of the invention of Choe which states "some computers change their configuration[,] ... at least their network address[,] every time they access the [I]ntemet through an [Internet Service Provider (ISP)] .... " (Ans. 15-16.) While this may be true, the Examiner has not explained how this teaching relates to the disclosure of the processes of the Choe reference. Moreover, the Examiner has not shown that either of the two methods disclosed in the Choe reference perform the authenticating process and the allocating process independently and performed in parallel. While the Examiner relies upon the Zha reference for teaching authenticating by a controller, the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Choe reference teaches or suggests performing the authenticating process and the allocating process independently and performed in parallel by a controller rather than at the client device. (Reply Br. 2-3.) As a result, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that the combination of the Zha and Choe references teach or suggest the invention as recited in the language of illustrative independent claim 1. Because independent claims 9, 13, and 19 contain similar limitations, we find the Examiner's rejection to be deficient for the same reasons discussed above with respect to illustrative independent claim 1. Moreover, the Examiner has not identified how any of the additional references remedy the noted deficiency above. As a result, we cannot 5 Appeal2017-003325 Application 13/717,423 sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 10, 14, 15, and 20 based upon the additional prior art references. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-22 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-22. REVERSED 6