Ex Parte GroenendaalDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 27, 201210885551 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation