Ex Parte Chuang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 10, 201511453725 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/453,725 06/15/2006 Che-Ming Chuang M-16452 US 6225 32605 7590 12/10/2015 Haynes and Boone, LLP IP Section 2323 Victory Avenue SUITE 700 Dallas, TX 75219 EXAMINER ANDERSON, MICHAEL D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2433 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/10/2015 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 CHE-MING CHUANG, CARL TUNG, HSIU-LING LEE, and KUNG-SHIUH HUANG ____________________ Appeal 2013-005944 Application 11/453,725 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2013-005944 Application 11/453,725 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART and ENTER A NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). INVENTION The invention is directed to protecting wireless networks against unwanted intrusions and use by unauthorized persons. Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 6 and 11 are illustrative of the invention and are reproduced below: 6. A wireless access point for maintaining wireless network security, comprising: means for receiving from a wireless client policies and rules for implementing wireless intrusion detection, wherein the wireless client policies and rules are stored in a data base of the wireless client; means for exchanging said policies and rules over a secure link with other access points; means for receiving a detection of an intrusion from all wireless clients in a network, wherein the detection of the intrusion is carried out by at least one of the wireless clients, and wherein the detection of the intrusion includes sensing a presence of an unknown entity and classifying the entity one of: a trusted entity or a rogue entity based on the wireless policies and rules for implementing wireless intrusion detection; means for detecting an intrusion within the network; and 1 Our decision makes reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Oct. 26, 2012) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 11, 2013), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 11, 2013) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 7, 2012). Appeal 2013-005944 Application 11/453,725 3 means for notifying all wireless client within range when an intrusion has been detected, wherein all the wireless clients are updated with the intrusion detection. App. Br. 23. 11. A wireless client programmed to administer network security, the client comprising: a processor; and; a computer readable memory, wherein the memory stores instructions which, when executed, cause the processor to perform the operations of: setting up an internal data base on the wireless client containing profile information from all access points within range of said wireless client; configuring security policy violation rules; obtaining from an access point a message indicating a violation of said security policy violation rules; detecting an intrusion within a network, wherein the detecting includes sensing a presence of an unknown entity and classifying the entity as one of: a trusted entity or a rogue entity based on the security policy violation rules; notifying the access point of the intrusion; and updating said data base in response to said message. App. Br. 24. REFERENCES Lor et al. US 2004/0068668 A1 Apr. 8, 2004 Gates US 2006/0072760 A1 Apr. 6, 2006 Doherty et al. US 7,565,690 B2 July 21, 2009 (filed Oct. 17, 2003) Appeal 2013-005944 Application 11/453,725 4 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Gates, Lor, and Doherty. Ans. 14–17. Claims 6–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Lor and Doherty. Ans. 17–20. Claims 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Gates. Ans. 11–14. Claims 14–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Lor and Gates. Ans. 20–24. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that Gates teaches “setting up an internal data base on the wireless client containing profile information from all access points within range of said wireless client,” as recited in independent claim 11 and similarly recited in independent claims 1 and 13? Did the Examiner err in finding that Doherty teaches “the detection of the intrusion is carried out by at least one of the wireless clients, and wherein the detection of the intrusion includes sensing a presence of an unknown entity and classifying the entity one of: a trusted entity or a rogue entity based on the wireless policies and rules for implementing wireless intrusion detection,” as recited in independent claim 6? Did the Examiner err in finding Gates “detect[s] an intrusion within the network, wherein the detecting includes sensing a presence of an unknown entity and classifying the entity as one of: a trusted entity or a rogue entity based on the security violation rules,” as recited in independent claim 14? Appeal 2013-005944 Application 11/453,725 5 ANALYSIS Claims 1–5 and 1113 Independent claim 11 recites, inter alia, “setting up an internal data base on the wireless client containing profile information from all access points within range of said wireless client.” Independent claims 1 and 13 contain similar limitations. Claims 25 and 12 are dependent upon claims 1 and 11, respectively. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Gates discloses this limitation. App. Br. 1315; Reply Br. 5–7. Specifically, Appellants contend that the Examiner fails to specify where Gates discloses creating a data base containing profile information from all clients within range of the wireless client. App. Br. 14. We agree with Appellants. Gates discloses a hardware device (e.g., wireless client) that allows users access to confidential or sensitive information if the device can detect the presence of a trusted wireless local area network (WLAN). Gates ¶¶ 22, 24. The hardware device determines whether detected WLANs are “trusted” by comparing the detected WLAN Service Set Identifiers (SSIDs) or other identifying profile information to previously stored information on the hardware device. Id. ¶¶ 39–40. Therefore, Gates’ hardware device has a data base that contains trusted WLAN SSIDs. However, the Examiner fails to show where Gates teaches creating a data base with profile information from all of the access points within range of the client. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, or the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5 and 12–13 for similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive, we need not reach the remaining arguments asserted by Appellants. Appeal 2013-005944 Application 11/453,725 6 Claims 6–10 Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Lor and Doherty teaches a wireless client detecting the intrusion of a network and the classification of the intruding entity as either trusted or rogue, as required by independent claim 6. App. Br. 19. Specifically, Appellants contend that Doherty (a) monitors data entries, rather than monitoring a network as claimed; (b) monitors data entities that appear to be known entities, rather than sensing a presence of an unknown entity; and (c) does not classify the entity as either trusted or rogue. App. Br. 18–19. We disagree. Here, the Examiner finds that Doherty teaches an intrusion detection system which monitors data entries by comparing digital signatures locally. Final Act. 8, 11. If an entity’s signature does not match one stored in a first database, an entry is made in a second database to record a possible intrusion, and the host containing the entry may be isolated within the system. Id. No action is taken if the entity’s signature matches one in the first database. See id. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Doherty’s system monitors the network to determine which digital signatures are authorized, i.e., trusted, and which are not authorized or considered “rogue.” Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Appellants do not separately argue that claims 7–10 are patentable. See App. Br. 19. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7–10 for the same reasons as indicated above with respect to claim 6. Claims 14–20 Initially, we note that we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1113, above, based on a limitation not found in claim 14. Appeal 2013-005944 Application 11/453,725 7 Appellants contend that Gates teaches the detection of the presence of a network, but not an intrusion into a network as required by claim 14. App. Br. 14–15,2 19. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds that Gates teaches using a hardware device to detect the presence of a trusted network, but if no trusted network is detected, access to the device is restricted. Final Act. 3. The Examiner explains that Gates uses a security protocol to authenticate a secure network, and that access to data will only be given if the security identification matches between an access point and hardware. Ans. 26. However, the Examiner fails to show, and we do not find, how denying access to a network equates to detecting an intrusion into the network. For the reasons stated above, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 and claims 1520 that depend upon claim 14. However, as indicated above with respect to claims 610, we agree with the Examiner that Doherty teaches that which is lacking by the teachings of the combination of Lor and Gates. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Doherty teaches an intrusion detection system which monitors data entries by comparing digital signatures locally. Final Act. 8, 11. If an entity’s signature does not match one stored in a first database, an entry is made in a second database to record a possible intrusion, and the host 2 Appellants present this argument for independent claims 11 and 13, and further rely on this argument for independent claim 14. App. Br. 19. Because we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 13 based on a limitation not found in independent claim 14, we address this argument presented by Appellants with respect to independent claim 14. Appeal 2013-005944 Application 11/453,725 8 containing the entry may be isolated within the system. Id. No action is taken if the entity’s signature matches one in the first database. See id. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Doherty’s system monitors the network to determine which digital signatures are authorized, i.e., trusted, and which are not authorized or considered “rogue.” Combining Doherty’s teachings with those of Lor and Gates would have been nothing more than a combination of familiar elements according to known methods that yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). As our analysis deviates from the Examiner’s rejection, we designate our analysis to be a new ground of rejection of claims 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lor, Gates, and Doherty. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Gates teaches “setting up an internal data base on the wireless client containing profile information from all access points within range of said wireless client,” as recited in independent claim 11 and similarly recited in independent claims 1 and 13. The Examiner did not err in finding that Doherty teaches “the detection of the intrusion is carried out by at least one of the wireless clients, and wherein the detection of the intrusion includes sensing a presence of an unknown entity and classifying the entity one of: a trusted entity or a rogue entity based on the wireless policies and rules for implementing wireless intrusion detection,” as recited in independent claim 6. The Examiner erred in finding that Gates “detect[s] an intrusion within the network, wherein the detecting includes sensing a presence of an unknown entity and classifying the entity as one of: a trusted entity or a Appeal 2013-005944 Application 11/453,725 9 rogue entity based on the security violation rules,” as recited in independent claim 14. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Gates, Lor, and Doherty is reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Lor and Doherty is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Gates is reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Lor and Gates is reversed. We enter a new ground of rejection for claims 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Lor, Gates, and Doherty. TIME PERIOD This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides“[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, Appeal 2013-005944 Application 11/453,725 10 and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record . . . . No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) jagr Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation