Ex Parte Gunasekara et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

13793421 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

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