Ex Parte Garcia Morchon et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 11, 201814122050 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation