Ex Parte Garcia Morchon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2018

14122050 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/122,050 11/25/2013
138325 7590 09/13/2018
PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V.
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oscar Garcia Morchon
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.
2011P00501WOUS 2521
EXAMINER
OKEKE, IZUNNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2497
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2018 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):
kim. larocca@signify.com
jo.cangelosi@signify.com
Gigi.Miller© signify. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OSCAR GARCIA MORCHON,
DANIEL MARTIN GORGEN,
TIM CORNEEL WILHELMUS SCHENK,
JAVIER ESPINS PEREZ, and MARC AOUN
Appeal2016-006482 1
Application 14/122,050
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of
claims 1-6 and 8-15. 2 Claim 7 is cancelled. App. Br. 11. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We reverse.
1 Appellants asserts the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. Appeal Brief 2.
2 In this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed November
10, 2015), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 13, 2016), the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed April 12, 2016), the Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed June 19, 2015), and the original Specification ("Spec.,"
filed November 25, 2013).
Appeal 2016-006482
Application 14/122,050
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates generally to control of a mesh network.
Generally speaking, a mesh network is one that does not depend on a central
controller. Spec. 1: 18-21. Figure 1 is reproduced below:
80-.., ;·····
~ Serviru Center I
-60 ?O ~~,:~~.,:~n~b~~ ~ , --
~J Cm1tral/SsrJm,mt Controller i
\·····································cc·:··· ............................ :· 1Q
/ ; ... fr .. t) · : N J····· L~ ' . L}L_·_·_·}--· - --t N • :.,r
........ ..<' ..... , .............. f--N'----·;c--···········
iN ........... t ---···· , , ·
N :.-· ____ N_ ___ T
Fig. 1
Figure 1 depicts a typical wireless network using a mesh architecture
in which nodes 10 are connected among each other by wireless
communication paths 40. Spec. 2: 1-5. In such a mesh network, any pair of
nodes 10 may communicate with one another over any of several hops
( communication paths) through a routing protocol. Id. at 2: 17-18. For
security of communications in the mesh network, a common key ("K") is
used to authenticate at each hop whether a particular packet originated from
one of nodes 10 or from an interfering node that does not share the common
key (K). Id. at 2:18-20.
According to Appellants, such simple security mechanisms fail to
protect against two particular scenarios. Id. at 3: 1. In a first scenario, nodes
(10) are in the process of initialization ("commissioning" of the nodes to
share the secure common key), a period of time during which an attacker
2
Appeal 2016-006482
Application 14/122,050
may overload the mesh network (a so-called denial of service attack). See
id. at 3 :2-1 7. In a second scenario, in which each node may have limited
capability to store knowledge about every other node, an attacker may be
able to eavesdrop on communications in one segment of the mesh network
directed to a node in another segment of the mesh network to obtain security
information regarding the network. See id. at 3: 19-4:2.
Appellants' invention purports to address these security issues by
providing a "phase-aware" system in which nodes of the network consider
differences in the phases of the network operation to improve security of the
network. See id. at 4:7-24. Figure 5 is reproduced below:
S500
J
C l'. 1
t Determine current nebvork phase 1
'~_,-,SS10
j Set operahon parameters i-
1' --,--1-.--.-st
1 Reoe,ive a data p.ac~mt i
I 1 . "S$30
Analyse received data packet :..l
--------· J-----~-{~~o
.. _.:~l\~~::~,:~~:~.-~~:~!! .(. ...... :~.:]."
S550 ....-S560
--~-~~~-~ •""""""""""""""'"".,.(""""""""·.
1 .. ~t:?G~ss _:aa~i~ __ pi'i~~~-e-~.J 1 .. Drop _d ata __ pi'iCket __ I
3
Appeal 2016-006482
Application 14/122,050
Figure 5 is a flow diagram illustrating exemplary phase-aware
behavior of a node. Id. at 9:3--4. At step S500, the method determine the
current network phase. Id. at 13:33-34. Step S5IO sets operating
parameters according to the current phase, step S520 receives a packet and
step S530 analyzes the received packet. Id at 13:32-14:13. Steps S540,
S550, and D560 then determine whether to accept the packet (S550) or drop
the packet (S560) based on the security analysis (S540). Id. at 14: 13-27.
Independent method claim 1, reproduced below with formatting
changes to improve readability, is illustrative:
1. A control unit for a node of a network, comprising:
a processor having a phase-adaptation module to adjust at
least one operation parameter of the node based on a current
network phase,
wherein the current network phase is one of a plurality of
network phases comprising at least one of a commissioning
phase, a learning phase during which a node learns about its
neighbors and an operating phase and wherein the at least one
operation parameter enables a security for each respective
network phase; and
a phase-aware module to process a received data packet
based on the operation parameter to enable the security for the
current network phase.
Independent method claim 15 recites steps of a method essentially
corresponding to the functions of the elements of claim 1.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over Kim (U.S. 2012/0066764 Al; published Mar. 15, 2012) and Girao
(U.S. 2009/0268909 Al; published Oct. 29, 2018). Final Act. 2---6.
4
Appeal 2016-006482
Application 14/122,050
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on Kim for
teaching the elements of the claim, but finds Kim "fails to teach setting the
security parameter during different phases of the network." Final Act. 2-3
(citing Kim ,r,r 91-93). The Examiner then finds,
However, setting/adjusting an operation parameter [that] enables
security for respective network phases [was] well known in the
art and disclosed by Girao in Para 6 and 10-12 ( data packet for
setting/adjusting a parameter for enabling security in a node
based on a current operational phase of the network after an
initialization phase).
Id. at 3.
Appellants argue the combination fails to teach "'wherein the at least
one operation parameter define a security for each respective network phase;
and a phase-aware module to process a received data packet based on the
operation parameter to enable the security for the current network phase. "'3
App. Br. 5 ( emphasis added). Specifically, Appellants argue "Girao does
not teach an operation parameter that defines a security for each respective
network phase, as claimed." Id. at 6. Furthermore, Appellants argue "Girao
does not teach an operation parameter that defines a security for each
respective network phase, and a phase-aware module to process a received
data packet based on the operation parameter to enable the security for the
current network phase as claimed." Id. at 7.
3 The Examiner correctly observes that the claims do not recite an operation
parameter that "defines" a security for each phase, but instead recites that the
parameter "enables" a security for each phase. Ans. 2. The Examiner
asserts that Appellants' arguments are, therefore, directed to a feature not
recited in the claims. See id. We find this minor variation in phrasing is not
relevant to our analysis.
5
Appeal 2016-006482
Application 14/122,050
In response, the Examiner explains the claims are directed to a
"current network phase," a single network phase that could be "at least one"
of three possible phases-namely at least one of "a commissioning phase,"
"a learning phase," and "an operating phase." Ans. 2-3. Specifically, the
Examiner finds "[b ]ased on the phrase ( at least one of) in the claim, it is not
required that the prior art disclose all three phases and enable security for all
three phases." Id. at 3. Based on this construction, the Examiner finds the
cited art teaches the disputed claim language:
Id.
Kim teaches setting the key value to enable security (secure
communication) suitable for a network state[,] but fails to
explicitly recite the network state/phase for which the security is
enabled. The secondary reference (Girao) teaches a current
operational phase wherein a network is stable after an
initialization phase and wherein a key for secure communication
is securely inserted (See Girao, Para 6 and 12).
In their Reply Brief, Appellants disagree with the Examiner's
interpretation of "each respective network phase." Reply Br. 6. Appellants
argue that "the claim clearly indicates that there are at least two network
phases ( e.g. a commissioning phase, and/or a learning phase AND an
operating phase) and each phase has an operation parameter [to] define a
security for each respective network phase." Id.
ANALYSIS
Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
6
Appeal 2016-006482
Application 14/122,050
2007). However, "a claim construction analysis must begin and remain
centered on the claim language itself." Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari
Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Although the claim is not a model of clarity and Appellants fail to
adequately identify support in the Specification for their interpretation (see
App. Br. 2-3), Appellants' interpretation is more reasonable than that of the
Examiner. In essence, Appellants argue "each respective network phase"
refers to the plurality of ( at least two) network phases (i.e., the
commissioning, learning, and operating phases) and, thus, there must be an
( at least one) operation parameter associated with each of the plurality of
phases so that each phase has at least one operation parameter to enable a
security for that phase.
We find the plain meaning of the claim itself, to an ordinarily skilled
artisan, supports this interpretation. The plain meaning of the phrase "each
respective" typically refers to a plurality of things at least because ( 1) "each"
suggests there is likely more than one thing and (2) "respective" suggests
there is a correspondence between a plurality of related things. The plurality
of things referred to by the claim language is the plurality of network phases
recited earlier in claim 1. The claim then refers to the operation parameter
( one or more such parameters) that enables a security for each of the
plurality of networks phases.
In addition to constituting the plain meaning of the claim, we discern
support in the Specification for Appellants' interpretation. For example, the
Specification at pages 10-11 recites a number of situations in which at least
one operation parameter is set/changed based on the security needs of each
network phase.
7
Appeal 2016-006482
Application 14/122,050
Under this construction, the Examiner has not identified "at least one
operation parameter" that enables a security for each of the plurality of
network phases (e.g., all three recited network phases). Instead, the
Examiner, consistent with an incorrect interpretation, finds, "[t]he claim
language ( at least one of) suggests that a prior art teaching that discloses one
of the phases as a current phase and enables security for that phase clearly
anticipates the claim." Ans. 3.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness because the Examiner's findings and conclusions are based on
an incorrect claim construction; given our construction, the Examiner fails to
identify where the combined teachings of the references disclose "wherein
the at least one operation parameter enables a security for each respective
network phase."
For the above reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. For essentially the same
reasons, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 15 and dependent claims 2-6 and 8-14.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6
and 8-15 is reversed.
REVERSED
8