Ex Parte Gunasekara et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 201813793421 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 131793,421 03/11/2013 Don Gunasekara 58406 7590 03/26/2018 BARRY W. CHAPIN, ESQ. CHAPIN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLC 352 Turnpike Road Suite 110 Southborough, MA 01772 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. TWC13-04(13-02) 1000 EXAMINER JAMSHIDI, GHODRAT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2493 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2018 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): docket@chapin-ip-law. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DON GUNASEKARA, HARRIET DUBOIS, KEVIN CALDWELL, and LAXMAN NALLANI Appeal2017-009452 Application 13/793,421 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 6-14, 19, 24--26, 28-31, and 34--38. The Examiner indicates claims 2-5, 15-17, 20-23, 32, and 33 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 18 and 27 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellants identify Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-009452 Application 13/793,421 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to protection against illegitimate link termination in a wireless network. Spec. 2-3. Claims 1 and 19, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, are exemplary of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: at a wireless access point openly accessible to public use, receiving an association communication from a computer device to establish a wireless communication link with the wireless access point, the association communication including unique information associated with the computer device; establishing the wireless communication link between the wireless access point and the computer device; and utilizing the unique information received in the association communication to verifY authenticity of a request to terminate the wireless communication link. 19. A method comprising: at a computer device communicating with a wireless access point, the wireless access point being an open wireless access point: receiving a network address of the wireless access point; retrieving unique information associated with the wireless access point; and utilizing the unique information to verify authenticity of a request to terminate a wireless communication link between the wireless access point and the computer device. 2 Appeal2017-009452 Application 13/793,421 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 11-14, 24--26, 28, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Kholaif et al. (US 2011/0085447 Al; published Apr. 14, 2011) ("Kholaif') and Glass et al. (US 8,340,711 Bl; issued Dec. 25, 2012) ("Glass"). Claims 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Kholaif, Glass, and Herbert et al. (US 2012/0051346 Al; published Mar. 1, 2012) ("Herbert"). Claims 19, 29, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Stevens et al. (US 2008/0066157 Al; published Mar. 13, 2008) ("Stevens") and Cam-Winget et al. (US 2008/0295144 Al; published Nov. 27, 2008) ("Cam-Winget"). Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Kholaif, Glass, and Meier et al. (US 2009/0052362 Al; published Feb. 26, 2009) ("Meier"). Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Kholaif, Glass, and Cam-Winget. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 14, 24 Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kholaif and Glass teaches or suggests "utilizing the unique information received in the association communication to verify authenticity of a request to terminate the wireless communication link," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 14 and 24? 3 Appeal2017-009452 Application 13/793,421 The Examiner relies on the resetting functionality in Glass to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 4 (citing Glass col. 8, 11. 23-63, col. 12, 11. 40-56); Ans. 2-3. Appellants argue "[t]he service in Glass does not even refer to termination of an active communication link in a manner as recited by the claimed invention." App. Br. 21 2 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, "the dual-mode service [in Glass] is located behind a respective wireless access point." App. Br. 21. Appellants argue "Glass merely indicates that upon receiving a reset or cancellation message, the access point manager component 106 resets or clears the access point profile stored in the AP profile data store 108." App. Br. 22. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Glass generally describes controlling access to dual mode services by associating a mobile device to an access point. Glass, Abstract. Mobile devices are restricted to specific access points to which they have been related or paired based upon access point identifiers, which are stored in a subscriber profile. Glass, Abstract, col. 4, 11. 61---col. 5, 1. 10. When a user connects to a dual mode service system, an authorization component compares the access point identifier for the access point from which the handset is requesting service to the access point identifier maintained in the subscriber profile, and authorizes the service based on that comparison. E.g., Glass, col. 5, 11. 38- 61, col. 7, 11. 13-38. Glass also describes that a user may submit a request to reset or discontinue a previously related or paired dual mode service access point. Glass, col. 8, 11. 23-32. The request may include information identifying the subscriber account and associated handset that may be used 2 Citations are to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed on January 4, 2017. 4 Appeal2017-009452 Application 13/793,421 to verify the identity of the subscriber. Glass, col. 8, 11. 40-43, col. 12, 11. 40-45. We agree with Appellants that there is a distinction between the dual mode service and the wireless communication link. See, e.g., Glass Fig. 7; compare col. 7, 11. 15-16 ("the handset 102 can establish a link ... to the access point"), and col. 11, 11. 7-9 ("a connection is established between the handset and the dual mode service system"), with col. 7, 11. 28-34 ("the handset authorization component 112 will deny service to the handset 102"), and col. 11, 11. 22-36 ("the subscriber handset is provided dual mode service ... [or] service is denied"). The resetting functionality described in Glass, and relied upon by the Examiner, does not pertain to the wireless communication link, but instead pertains to the dual mode service and resets information in the subscriber profile relating to that service, such as an access point identifier or other subscription information. We do not see, nor has the Examiner sufficiently explained, how this dual mode service functionality renders obvious the claimed request to terminate the wireless communication link. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 24. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of dependent claims 6-13, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, and 36-38. Claims 19 and 29 Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Stevens and Cam-Winget teaches or suggests "utilizing the unique information to verify authenticity of a request to terminate a wireless communication link 5 Appeal2017-009452 Application 13/793,421 between the wireless access point and the computer device," as recited in independent claim 19 and commensurately recited in independent claim 29? The Examiner relies on the combination of Cam-Winget and Stevens to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 15 (citing Stevens i-f 177 and Cam-Winget i-f 82). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Cam-Winget to teach or suggest "a request to terminate a wireless communication link between the wireless access point and the computer device," and Stevens to teach or suggest the remaining limitations. Final Act. 14--15. Appellants argue Stevens "indicate[ s] to receive an identifier from the available access point; the authentication server compares the requested identifier with each identifier in the configuration file in order to determine whether the available access point is an authorized access point," but does not teach or suggest "utilizing the unique information to verify authenticity of a request to terminate a wireless communication link between the wireless access point and the computer device." App. Br. 44. Appellants argue in Cam-Winget, "a rogue access point may attempt to disassociate a respective client from a wireless access point," but "the client device receiving the inappropriate disassociation request simply disregards it." App. Br. 44--45. According to Appellants, there is no indication that the client device receives a network address of the wireless access point; retrieves unique information associated with the wireless access point; and then utilizes the unique information to verify authenticity of a request to terminate a wireless communication link between the wireless access point and the computer device. App. Br. 45. 6 Appeal2017-009452 Application 13/793,421 We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Stevens generally describes "[a] monitoring client simulates a user and detects available access points, and compares the identity of any available access points to those maintained by an authentication server associated with the network." Stevens, Abstract. More specifically, in Stevens, "[t]he monitoring device requests an identifier from the available access point, and the authentication server compares the requested identifier with each identifier in the configuration file, in order to determine whether the available access point is an authorized access point." Stevens i-f 8; see also id. i-fi-116, 17. Cam-Winget describes enabling a "wireless client to validate the authenticity and integrity of received management frames," where the client receives "a protected wireless network management frame from an access point verifying a message integrity check (MIC)," and conditionally applying one or more security policies based on a failure to verify the MIC. Cam-Winget, Abstract. Cam-Winget further describes a rogue access point may spoof a legitimate access point and send disassociation requests to wireless clients in order to disconnect them from legitimate access points .... However, with the claimed embodiments in place, the wireless client will simply disregard the disassociation request and continue to be connected to legitimate access points. Cam-Winget i-f 82; see also id. i-f 81. Appellants' arguments address the references individually and do not take into account what the collective teachings of Stevens and Cam-Winget would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relies on Cam-Winget, not Stevens, to teach or suggest "a request to terminate a wireless communication link between the wireless access point and the computer 7 Appeal2017-009452 Application 13/793,421 device" and the Examiner relies on Stevens, not Cam-Winget, to teach or suggest the remaining limitations in the claim. We agree with the Examiner that Cam-Winget's "send[ing] disassociation requests to wireless clients in order to disconnect them from legitimate access points" teaches or suggests a request to terminate a wireless communication link between the wireless access point and the computer device, as claimed. Moreover, Cam-Winget describes comparing information to determine whether a transmission is authorized, such as to know when to disregard disassociation requests. Cam-Winget i-fi-1 80-82. We agree with the Examiner that the disclosure in Cam-Winget, as combined with Stevens' disclosure of comparing identifiers to determine whether an access point is authorized (Final Act. 14--15), teaches or suggests utilizing the unique information to verifj; authenticity of a request to terminate a wireless communication link between the wireless access point and the computer device. Appellants do not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's findings. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 19 and 29. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent 34, which was not separately argued. See App. Br. 45. With respect to dependent claim 35, Appellants provide similar arguments, specifically that "there is no indication that the cited prior art terminates a wireless communication link based on detecting that the data in the received message from the wireless access point matches the retrieved unique information associated with the wireless access point." App. Br. 46. For the same reasons as set forth above, we are not persuaded by this argument. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claim 35. 8 Appeal2017-009452 Application 13/793,421 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6-14, 24--26, 28, 30, 31, and 36-38 We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 19, 29, 34, and 35. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation