Ex Parte Alt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2014

11323513 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte WADE R. ALT and KIWAN EDWARD BAE
_____________

Appeal 2012-006403
Application 11/323,513
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 14.
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of providing encrypted
packetized voice transmissions between two domains. See Abstract of
Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
reproduced below:
Appeal 2012-006403
Application 11/323,513
2

1. A method of providing communication services, the method
comprising:
receiving a request from a first endpoint of a first domain
for establishing a communication session with a second
endpoint of a second domain;
retrieving encrypted user credential information from a
credentials database resident within the first domain, wherein
the encrypted user credential includes a password associated
with a user associated with the first endpoint; and
transmitting the encrypted user credential information to
a tunneling server in response to the request, wherein the
tunneling server is configured to selectively setup a tunnel to
support the communication session based on the encrypted user
credential information, the tunnel traversing a first firewall and
a first network address translator of the first domain and a
second firewall and a second network address translator of the
second domain to reach the second endpoint.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5, 7 through 12 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hardjono (US 2004/0008666
A1), Chu (US 2005/0259637 A1), and Nanjangudu (US 2011/0154455 A1).
Answer 5–9.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hardjono, Chu, Nanjangudu, and Miyajima (US
2006/0083222 A1). Answer 9-11.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated November 29,
2011, Reply Brief dated March 5, 2012, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
on February 13, 2012.
Appeal 2012-006403
Application 11/323,513
3

ISSUES
Appellants argue, on pages 8 through 13 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 2 through 8 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 through 5, 7 through 12 and 14 is in error. These arguments present us
with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hardjono,
Chu and Nanjangudu teaches a tunneling server configured to selectively
setup a tunnel to support the communication session based on the encrypted
user credential information, the tunnel traversing a first firewall and a first
network address translator of the first domain and a second firewall and a
second network address translator of the second domain to reach the second
endpoint?
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 6 and 13 is in error for the
same reasons.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting 1 through 14.
Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue focus on Hardjono
not teaching “the tunnel traversing a first firewall and a first network address
translator of the first domain and a second firewall and a second network
address translator of the second domain to reach the second endpoint.” App.
Brief 9. Specifically Appellants assert proxy server 542 of Hardjono does
not meet the claimed tunneling server as the “proxy server 542 of Hardjono
is not configured to selectively set up a tunnel for supporting a
communication session between a first domain and a second domain.” App.
Appeal 2012-006403
Application 11/323,513
4

Brief 10. Further, Appellants argue that while Chu does disclose transversal
of firewalls and address translators of different domains, there is nothing to
suggest modifying Hardjono. App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner’s rejection by these arguments. Specifically the Examiner has
found that Hardjono teaches a device receives user credential information
and uses the proxy server to establish communications with another device.
Answer 18-21. We concur with these findings. Further, the Examiner finds
that Chu teaches “the tunnel traversing a first firewall and a first network
address translator of the first domain and a second firewall and a second
network address translator of the second domain to reach the second
endpoint.” Answer 6 (citing para 29 and Fig. 2). We concur with this
finding, further, we note that the both Fig. 2 and paragraph 29 discuss using
the firewalls with IP phones (i.e. VOIP which is the subject of Hardjono).
Finally, the Examiner reasons the skilled artisan would combine the
teachings as to do such would reduce security risks. Answer 6. We concur
with the Examiner’s conclusion, and also note that as Chu teaches the use of
firewalls in IP phones and Hardjono teaches a system of encryption of VOIP
phones, thus the combination is merely the use of known devices for their
known function.
Appellants arguments’ directed to Hardjono not teaching tunneling,
App. Br 10-11, Reply, Br. 2-7, are not persuasive. The Examiner has found
that it is the combination of Hardjono and Chu which teaches the claimed
tunneling. Further, while it is not contested that Chu teaches tunneling, the
definition of tunneling, proffered by Appellants, on page 4 of the Reply
Brief, is not supported by the Specification. Thus, Appellants’ arguments
have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Hardjono, Chu, and Nanjangudu teaches a tunneling server is configured to
Appeal 2012-006403
Application 11/323,513
5

selectively setup a tunnel to support the communication session based on the
encrypted user credential information, the tunnel traversing a first firewall
and a first network address translator of the first domain and a second
firewall and a second network address translator of the second domain to
reach the second endpoint. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1 through 14.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 14 is
affirmed.
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

lv