Ex Parte Groenendaal

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2012

10885551 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JOHAN VAN DE GROENENDAAL
____________________

Appeal 2010-000497
Application 10/885,551
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ERIC B.CHEN, and MICHAEL R.
ZECHER Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000497
Application 10/885,551

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a method for securing
a network including providing one or more information sources, identifying
one or more devices on the network using the information sources, and
determining whether identified devices are authorized (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim(s)
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method for securing a network, comprising:

identifying one or more information sources;

using said one or more information sources to identify one or
more authorized devices on a first network;

determining that a particular one of the identified authorized
devices is bridging the first network and a second network, the second
network comprising an adhoc wireless network established between
the particular one of the identified authorized devices and a second
wirelessly-enabled device; and

identifying the second wirelessly-enabled device
communicating via the second network with the particular one of the
identified devices; and

Appeal 2010-000497
Application 10/885,551

3
determining whether the second wirelessly-enabled device
communicating via the second network with the particular one of the
identified devices is authorized to be on the first network.

Prior Art
Calhoun US 7,336,670 B1

Feb. 26, 2008
Filed Oct. 24, 2003

Rejections
Claims 1-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Calhoun.

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(e): claims 1-47
Appellant argues the invention is not anticipated by Calhoun because
Calhoun does not disclose: (i) “determining that a particular one of the
identified authorized devices is bridging the first network and a second
network, the second network comprising an adhoc wireless network
established between the particular one of the identified authorized devices
and a second wirelessly-enabled device;” and (ii) “determining whether the
second wirelessly-enabled device communicating via the second network
with the particular one of the identified devices is authorized to be on the
first network,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 18-22). Specifically,
Appellant argues Calhoun merely discloses identifying an unauthorized
access point to a network, not an authorized device (App. Br. 19). Further,
Calhoun does not, according to Appellant, describe determining whether the
Appeal 2010-000497
Application 10/885,551

4
second wirelessly-enabled device is authorized to be on the first network
(id.).

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Calhoun discloses: (i)
“determining that a particular one of the identified authorized devices is
bridging the first network and a second network, the second network
comprising an adhoc wireless network established between the particular
one of the identified authorized devices and a second wirelessly-enabled
device;” and (ii) “determining whether the second wirelessly-enabled device
communicating via the second network with the particular one of the
identified devices is authorized to be on the first network,” as recited in
claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown Calhoun
anticipates the present invention as recited in independent claim 1, and
commensurately recited in 11, 21, 31, 44, and 45. Specifically, we agree
with Appellant that Calhoun does not determine that a particular one of the
identified authorized devices is bridging the first network and a second
network. Although we agree that Calhoun discloses that an access point
typically bridges wireless traffic between wireless clients and the wired
network to which the access point is connected (col. 5, ll. 59-62), the
Examiner has not shown that Calhoun describes determining if the particular
authorized device bridges the first network and the second network , an
adhoc wireless network established between the particular authorized device,
and the second wirelessly-enabled device.
Appeal 2010-000497
Application 10/885,551

5
Additionally, although Calhoun describes when a rouge access point
is detected, the rouge containment device identifies the rouge client address
(Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 13-53), the Examiner has not shown Calhoun discloses
determining whether the second wirelessly-enabled device is authorized to
be on the first network. Instead, Calhoun describes the specific address is
supplied through the frames (id.) – there is no determination whether the
specific device is authorized. Moreover, Calhoun describes when a rouge
access point is detected, the rouge detection device identifies the authorized
access points that neighbor it (col. 7, ll. 55-60). Calhoun does not describe,
nor has the Examiner explained, how Calhoun describes determining
whether the second wirelessly-enabled device (the device associated with the
specific address supplied through the frames) is authorized.
[U]nless a reference discloses within the four
corners of the document not only all of the
limitations claimed but also all of the limitations
arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior
invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot
anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(emphasis added).
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding Calhoun discloses the
invention as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 11, 21, 31, 44, 45, 46, and 47. Dependent claims 2-10,
12-20, 22-30, and 32-43 stand with their respective independent claims.
Appeal 2010-000497
Application 10/885,551

6
Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-47 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Calhoun.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Calhoun is reversed.

REVERSED

tj