Ex Parte Xu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 9, 2016

12842279 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/842,279 07/23/2010 83719 7590 02/09/2016 AT & T Legal Department - FKM AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT, ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING ROOM 2A-207 BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gang Xu 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. 2009-1215 (40147/16301) 3740 EXAMINER TRAN, ELLEN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2433 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/09/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GANG XU, CRISTIAN BORCEA, and LIVIU IFTODE Appeal2014-001609 Application 12/842,279 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-001609 Application 12/842,279 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a set of instructions executable by a processor, the set of instructions performing a method comprising: receiving a request from a node to join a trusted ad hoc network; authenticating the node to join the trusted ad hoc network, the authentication performed based on a verification that the node will comply with a security policy of the trusted ad hoc network; sending, to the node, a verification that the trusted ad hoc network complies with the security policy; adding the node to the trusted ad hoc network; determining whether a further trusted ad hoc network complies with the security policy; if the further trusted ad hoc network complies with the security policy, sending an invitation to a further node of the further trusted ad hoc network; receiving, from the further node, an authentication that the further node belongs to the further trusted ad hoc network; and adding the further node to the trusted ad hoc network. APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 20 as obvious in view of Wallentin (US 2008/0261580 Al; pub. Oct. 23, 2008) and Lindstrom (US 2009/0168696 Al; pub. July 2, 2009); claims 3-5 and 14--16 as obvious in view ofWallentin, Lindstrom, and Touboul (US 2007 /0199060 Al; pub. Aug. 23, 2007); and claims 8-11 and 19 as obvious in view of Wallentin, Lindstrom, and Fukuzawa (US 2005/0215234 Al; pub. Sept. 29, 2005). 2 Appeal2014-001609 Application 12/842,279 ANALYSIS Appellants contend the combination of Wallentin and Lindstrom fails to teach or suggest "sending, to the node, a verification that the trusted ad hoc network complies with the security policy" as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4--5. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner "concedes" that Wallentin does not disclose the disputed limitation (App. Br. 4 (citing Final Act. 3)) and that Lindstrom discloses sending to a node parameters "relat[ing] to data transfer protocols and quality of service settings," not parameters relevant to security policies (App. Br. 5 (citing Lindstrom i-fi-f 11, 21, 24, 29-34, 51)); Reply Br. 4). We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive and agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Lindstrom teaches or suggests that including information relating to security policies with the verification sent to a node in the ad hoc network. Ans. 9 (citing Lindstrom Fig. 3, i-fi-f 16, 20, 32, 33, 39--40, 56, 62, and 64--67). In addition, the Examiner's rejection cites Wallentin as the primary teaching of the security policies enforced before allowing a node to join an ad hoc network (Final Act. 3 (citing Wallentin i-fi-181-82); Ans. 9-10 (citing Wallentin i-f 80)) and cites Lindstrom as an express disclosure of sending to a node verification of an ad hoc network's parameters (Final Act. 3). Further, the Examiner concludes, and we agree, that it would have been obvious to include Wallentin's security policies with the parameters included in a verification sent to a node such as the verification taught by Lindstrom. Final Act. 3 (citing Lindstrom i-fi-130, 33, 51); Ans. 9 (citing Lindstrom Fig. 3, i-fi-f 16, 20, 32, 33, 39--40, 56, 62, and 64--67). 3 Appeal2014-001609 Application 12/842,279 We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that Lindstrom fails to disclose security parameters and agree with the Examiner that Lindstrom's disclosure of a "policy unit" that is "responsible for authorising communication sessions" would have taught or suggested the claimed security policies. Lindstrom ,-r 33. Additionally, Appellants' arguments fail to substantively address what the combined teachings of Wallentin and Lindstrom would have taught or suggested to a person of ordinary skill and are therefore unpersuasive. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking prior art references individually when a rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of claims 2-20, for which Appellants rely on the arguments advanced for claim 1. See App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 5-8. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4