Ex Parte STUCKER

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 15, 2016

13470712 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/470,712 05/14/2012
105956 7590 04/19/2016
Fogarty, LLC
P.O. Box 703695
Dallas, TX 75370-3695
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
BRIAN STUCKER
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.
GEN-013-2 3021
EXAMINER
SMITH, JOSHUA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2016 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@fogartyip.com
jody.bishop@genband.com
uspto@fogartyip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN STUCKER
Appeal2014-004976
Application 13/470,712
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellant identifies Genband US, LLC as the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-004976
Application 13/470,712
THE INVENTION
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is directed to providing
topology hiding associated with an administrative interface and one or more
communications session signaling interfaces between a first network and a
second network. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for topology hiding at an administrative
interface between a first network and a second network, the
method comprising:
communicating control messages over one or more
communications session signaling interfaces for
establishing a communications session;
performing first topology hiding at the one or more
communications session signaling interfaces between
the first and second networks;
communicating authorization, authentication, and accounting
messages over the administrative interface between a
first module in the first network and a second module
in the second network; and
performing, by a topology hiding module implemented in a
computer and associated with the administrative
interface, second topology hiding at the administrative
interface, wherein the administrative interface is
different from the one or more communications
session signaling interfaces between the first network
and second network, and wherein the second topology
hiding is in addition to the first topology hiding, and
the first topology hiding and second topology hiding
are to hide topology information of the first network
from the second network.
2
Appeal2014-004976
Application 13/470,712
REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fogel (US 2007/0209067 Al, pub. Sept.
6, 2007) and Wang et al. (US 2005/0063411 Al, pub. Mar. 24, 2005). (Final
Act. 21--43.)
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fogel, Wang, and Ilkka et al. (US 2006/0155871
Al, pub. July 13, 2006). (Final Act. 43--46.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues: 3
Issue One: Whether the combination of Fogel and Wang teaches or
suggests the independent claim 1 limitations:
communicating authorization, authentication, and accounting
messages over the administrative interface between a
first module in the first network and a second module
in the second network; and
performing, by a topology hiding module implemented in a
computer and associated with the administrative
interface, second topology hiding at the administrative
interface, wherein the administrative interface is
2 The Examiner entered nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
rejections of the claims, which rejections are withdrawn as the result of
Appellant filing terminal disclaimers. (Final Act. 2-20; App. Br. 10; Ans.
29.)
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 6, 2013), Reply Brief
(filed Mar. 17, 2014), Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 18, 2013), and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Jan. 15, 2014) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2014-004976
Application 13/470,712
different from the one or more communications
session signaling interfaces ....
and the commensurate limitations recited in independent claims 13 and 18.
(App. Br. 11-14.)
Issue Two: Whether the combination of Fogel and Wang teaches or
suggests the dependent claim 3 limitation, "wherein providing the ALG
comprises providing a Diameter ALG," and the further related limitation of
dependent claim 4. (App. Br. 14--15.)
Issue Three: Whether the combination of Fogel and Wang teaches or
suggests the limitations of dependent claims 6-10, 14, 17, and 19; and
whether the combination of Fogel, Wang, and Ilkka teaches or suggests the
limitations of dependent claims 11 and 20. (App. Br. 15-19.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's arguments
and we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 21--46);
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 29--46). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
Issue One
For the limitations of claim 1 at issue, the Examiner relies on the
teachings in Fogel of a SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) Security Device
which interfaces between a public and private network, and which contains a
firewall through which SIP messages flow, and a NAT/PAT (Network
Address Translator/Port Address Translator) through which the media
4
Appeal2014-004976
Application 13/470,712
payload flows. (Final Act. 21-22; Fogel iii! 8-10, 33-38, 56, 57, Figs. 2, 3.)
The Examiner associates the firewall with the claimed "communications
session signaling interface," and the NAT/PAT with the "administrative
interface." (Final Act. 21.) The Examiner further relies on the teaching in
Wang of an AAA (Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting) Server.
(Final Act. 23-24; Wang if 45.)
Appellant argues Fogel does not teach or suggest an administrative
interface that is different from the communication session interface, as
required by the claims. (App. Br. 12.) However, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs in finding the firewall and NAT/PAT components are
separate interfaces, as illustrated, for example, in Figure 3 of Fogel. (Ans.
31-33.)
In addition, Appellant argues the combination fails to teach or suggest
the required "communicating authorization, authentication, and accounting
messages over the administrative interface." (App. Br. 12.) The basis for
this argument - the firewall and NAT IP AT interfaces are not separate - is
unpersuasive, as discussed above. In any case, the disclosure in Wang of an
AAA server provides sufficient support for this aspect of the claims. (Ans.
33-34.)
Appellant also argues that the combination of Fogel and Wang does
not teach or suggest "performing second topology hiding at the
administrative interface." (App. Br. 13.) This argument is unpersuasive,
given the disclosure in Fogel that the NAC/PAC acts "to isolate Internal SIP
User Agents 36 on the private network from external SIP User Agents on the
5
Appeal2014-004976
Application 13/470,712
public network and to Blacklist undesired callers .... " (Ans. 29-30, 35-37;
Fogel i-f 57; see also Fogel i-f 8.)4
Issue Two
Claim 3 (including the requirements of claim 2, on which claim 3
depends) requires, "wherein providing the topology hiding module
comprises providing an application level gateway (ALG) [and] wherein
providing the ALG comprises providing a Diameter ALG." The Examiner's
rejection relies on the disclosure in Wang of the Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) server. (Final Act. 25; Wang i-f 45.)
Appellant argues Wang "makes no suggestion that the AAA server is
specifically a Diameter ALG as recited in claim 3." However, we are not
persuaded the Examiner errs in finding:
The S-VPN gateway of Wang that can include aAAA server is
substantively the same as a Diameter ALG, since it is well
known in the prior art that AAA can transport Diameter
payloads within its messages for performing security processes,
and such an S-VPN gateway of Wang is substantively the same
as a Diameter ALG.
(Ans. 38.)
Issue Three
For each of claims 6-10, 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20, Appellant repeats the
argument that the firewall and NAT/PAT interfaces are not separate. (App.
4 For independent claim 13, Appellant argues "Neither Fogel nor Wang
teaches or suggests a mobile station." (App. Br. 13.) We are not persuaded
the Examiner errs in finding, "Either of the VoIP telephone 48 or the digital
video camera 52 [disclosed in Fogel] may be wireless or mobile and may
suggest a mobile station." (Ans. 37.)
6
Appeal2014-004976
Application 13/470,712
Br. 15-19.) As discussed above, this argument is unpersuasive, and
therefore, we sustain the rejections of these dependent claims.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejections
of claims 1, 3, 6-10 and 13, 14, and 17-19 over Fogel and Wang, and of
claims 11 and 20 over Fogel, Wang, and Ilkka.
We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 15,
and 16 over Fogel and Wang, which rejections are not argued separately
with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
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
7