Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2012

10549407 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/549,407 09/14/2005 Junbiao Zhang PU030084 1695
7590 10/17/2012
Joseph S Tripoli
Thomson Licensing Inc
Patent Operations
P O Box 5312
Princeton, NJ 08543-5312
EXAMINER
CHEN, SHIN HON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2012 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 JUNBIAO ZHANG, SAURABH MATHUR, and
SACHIN SATISH MODY
____________________

Appeal 2010-0064161
Application 10/549,407
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MARC S. HOFF, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The Real Party in Interest is Thomson Licensing S.A. (App. Br. 1.)

Appeal 2010-006416
Application 10/549,407

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-31. (App. Br. 1.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for reconfiguring a client
terminal (140) to access a wireless network (124). In particular, upon
receiving an access request from the terminal (140), an authentication server
(150) redirects the request to a local web server (120) to filter traffic packets
associated therewith. After obtaining requested authentication credentials
from the client terminal (140), the authentication server (150) activates a
module that reconfigures the client terminal using parameters provided by
the client terminal to thereby authenticate the reconfigured terminal to
access the wireless network. (Fig. 1, Spec. 3, ll. 1-18.)

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method for enabling a client terminal to access
a wireless network, comprising:
receiving an access request from the client terminal;
redirecting the access request to a local web server via a
packet traffic filter for filtering packet traffic;
requesting from the client terminal, information to
establish client terminal access to the wireless network;
activating, in response to the client terminal access
information received from the client terminal, a module that
Appeal 2010-006416
Application 10/549,407

3
reconfigures the client terminal for authentication using
appropriate parameters associated with a configuration
arrangement selected by a user; and
authenticating the reconfigured client terminal and
allowing access to the wireless network in response to the
authentication.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
LUO US 2003/0169713 A1 Sep. 11, 2003

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Luo.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, pages 9-21.
Representative Claim 1
Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Luo describes in response to receiving client terminal access
information from the client terminal, activating a module that reconfigures
the client terminal for authentication using appropriate parameters
associated with a configuration arrangement selected by a user, as recited
claim 1?
Appeal 2010-006416
Application 10/549,407

4
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the Examiner erred in finding that
Luo describes the disputed limitations emphasized above. In particular,
Appellants argue that while Luo discloses a Java applet that is downloaded
to the authentication server to help in the final authentication of the client
terminal, such use of the Java applet occurs as a last step subsequent to all
initial and intermediate authentication functions. Therefore, the Java applet
does not describe the claimed module for reconfiguring the client terminal in
response to parameters received therefrom. (App. Br. 13-14.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Luo’s disclosure of a java applet
with appropriate parameters used to connect to the wireless network teaches
the disputed limitations. (Ans. 3-4.)
On the record before us, we do not agree with the Examiner’s findings
and determination of anticipation. Luo discloses a Web-based
authentication server that employs a web page for initial authentication and a
Java applet for subsequent authentications. ([0014].) In particular, the server
downloads the Java applet to help generate authentication challenge
messages and authentication response messages. ([0045].) We note that
while the downloaded Java applet helps with the authentication of the
mobile terminal, it does not help reconfigure the terminal. At best, Luo
teaches that the web authentication server changes the state of the mobile
terminal from limited to normal when the authentication credentials received
from the user are proved to be valid, to subsequently allow the terminal to
access the wireless network. ([0044].) While this finding may be somewhat
Appeal 2010-006416
Application 10/549,407

5
relevant to the disputed limitations, we find that such a teaching was not
contemplated by the Examiner’s rejection.
Because Appellants have shown at least one error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, we need not address Appellants’ other arguments. It
follows that Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
Because claims 2-31 also recite the disputed limitations of claim 1
above, Appellants have similarly shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
those claims for the same reasons set forth above.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-31, as set forth
above.
REVERSED
ke