Ex Parte Brik et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

12555369 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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.
12/555,369 09/08/2009 Vladimir Alexander Brik 1512.291 1418
72088 7590 03/22/2017
WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION
C/O BOYLE FREDRICKSON S.C
840 North Plankinton Avenue
Milwaukee, WI53203
EXAMINER
POLTORAK, PIOTR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing @boylefred.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VLADIMIR ALEXANDER BRIK
and SUMAN BANERJEE
Appeal 2016-007193
Application 12/555,369
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—14 and 16—20. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 3—14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Hoogerwerf (US 6,035,188; Mar. 7, 2000), Hall (Jeyanthi
Hall, Michel Barbeau, and Evangelos Kranakis, “Detecting Rogue Devices
in Bluetooth Networks Using Radio Frequency Fingerprinting,” August
2006), and Wilson (US 2002/0118834 Al; Aug. 29, 2002). Final Act. 3-8.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Hoogerwerf, Hall, Wilson, and either Pazhyannur (US 2009/0287764 Al;
Appeal 2016-007193
Application 12/555,369
Nov. 19, 2009) or Cartmell (US 2003/0110400 Al; June 12, 2003). Final
Act. 8-9.1
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Hoogerwerf, Hall, Wilson, and Filimonov (US 2006/0126754 Al; June 15,
2006). Final Act. 9—10.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “deriv[ing] a fingerprint from the
modulation imperfections of the analog circuitry of the wireless
transceivers.” Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A secure network transceiver system for
communicating network data with a plurality of mobile
transceivers, each mobile transceiver having a digital signal
portion communicating with an analog radio portion, the secure
network transceiver system comprising:
at least one base transceiver having:
an analog radio portion exchanging radio signals
encoding network data with the mobile transceivers, the analog
radio portion including at least one phase demodulation circuit
receiving radio signals from an antenna and demodulating the
radio signals to provide a phase demodulated output;
an electronic computer including a processor and a
memory, the electronic computer receiving the phase
demodulated output from the analog radio portion and not the
undemodulated radio signals, the electronic computer further
executing a stored program contained in memory to:
(a) use the phase demodulated output to extract network
data from the radio signals;
1 The formal statement of the ground of rejection inadvertently omits
Wilson. We correctly state the ground of rejection here, including Wilson.
2
Appeal 2016-007193
Application 12/555,369
(b) use the phase demodulated output to execute an
authentication process with mobile transceivers through an
exchange of network data to:
(i) authenticate the mobile transceivers; and
(ii) to measuring the phase demodulated output to create
templates characterizing the authenticated mobile transceivers
according to the phase demodulated outputs;
(c) comparing the phase demodulated output of a given
mobile transceiver to the templates of authenticated mobile
transceivers; and
(d) generate an output indicating a possible security
violation when the phase demodulated output of the given
mobile transceiver does not match a template to within at least
one predetermined criterion.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1,3-14,16,18, and 19 over
Hoogerwerf, Hall, and Wilson
Claims 1, 4, 7—14, 16, 18, and 19
The Examiner finds Hoogerwerf, Hall, and Wilson teach all
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3—6; Ans. 8—20.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i. “Hoogerwerf does not suggest the possibility of fingerprinting
and data extraction using a single output of a demodulator as required by the
claims.” App. Br. 17. “Hoogerwerf does not teach how or where such
phase modulation derivation may occur.” App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 2—
5.
ii. “Hall performs fingerprinting only using a single demodulator
of a type that does not extract data.” App. Br. 18.
3
Appeal 2016-007193
Application 12/555,369
iii. “Wilson, teaches data extraction only using a single
demodulator different from the demodulator of Hall and of a type that does
not perform fingerprinting.” App. Br. 19.
According to Wilson, “phase modulators” are used “to establish
scrambling,” and subsequent phase demodulation is used to
unscramble and “recover” the data. As there is no teaching or
motivation to scramble data according to Hoogerwerf, there is
no rational basis to support a creation in which Hoogerwerf
provides “phase” output demodulation.
App. Br. 21.
iv. There is no reason to combine the references to achieve the
claimed invention. See App. Br. 21—22
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Appellants have not persuasively shown any error in the contested
findings and reasons of the Examiner. Nor have Appellants shown any error
in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants’ Specification does not define the term “network data” and
we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “network
data” includes any data transmitted over the network.
The Examiner finds Hoogerwerf teaches the recited (claim 1) “a . . .
demodulated output” and the further recited (claim 1): “(a) use the . . .
demodulated output to extract network data from the radio signals; (b) use
the . . . demodulated output to execute an authentication process.” See Final
Act. 4 (citing Hoogerwerf col. 6,11. 19—25 (“[A] demodulator 74
demodulates the RF signal.... [(A/D)] converter 76 converts the baseband
waveform into a digital waveform. The processor 66 extracts the reference
4
Appeal 2016-007193
Application 12/555,369
waveform contained in the digital waveform, which is used to build a
fingerprint of the transmitter of the cellular telephone 52.”)). We agree with
and adopt this finding as our own.
In reaching our conclusion, we emphasize that Hoogerwerf’s
baseband waveform reasonably describes the recited (claim 1) “demodulated
output.” Further, Hoogerwerf s baseband wave from is used to extract
network data (Hoogerwerf s digital waveform is data transmitted over the
network). Further, Hoogerwerf s baseband waveform is used to execute an
authentication process (Hoogerwerf extracts the reference waveform
contained in the digital waveform, which is using the baseband waveform to
execute an authentication process).
With regard to phase demodulation, the Examiner finds and
concludes:
a skilled artisan would recognize that circuits offering the
functionality of phase demodulation would have been old and
well known solution in the art of signal processing, as
illustrated by Wilson (see Fig. lb element 22 and associated
text) and it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art to
substitute the circuit taught by Hoogerwerf/Hall by a known
phase demodulating circuit as taught by Wilson given the
predictable benefit of data communication.
Final Act. 6. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect
to phase demodulation as our own, and we concur with the Examiner’s
conclusion with respect to phase demodulation. In short, given
Hoogerwerf s teaching of demodulation and Wilson’s specific teaching of
phase demodulation, modification of Hoogerwerf s system to use phase
demodulation would have been a predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. As the
U.S. Supreme Court has explained:
5
Appeal 2016-007193
Application 12/555,369
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. Ag
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Finally, the Examiner’s specific findings with respect to Hall’s
teachings (Final Act. 4—5) are not contested by Appellants. See App. Br.
18—19, 21—22. Regarding combining Hoogerwerf and Hall, the Examiner
reasons:
Both inventions are directed towards identifying a transmitting
device and the advantages of the Hoogerwerf and Hall systems
could have been easily combinable with more than reasonable
expectations of success, while motivating one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to combine the
reference given the predictable benefit of device
communication[. ]
Final Act. 5—6. We agree with the Examiner. Further, modifying
Hoogerwerf based on Hall’s teachings would have been a predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Put another way, regarding Appellants’ argument (i), (ii), and (iii), as
discussed above, Hoogerwerf and Wilson teach the argued limitation.
Regarding Appellants’ argument (iv), as discussed above, the Examiner’s
6
Appeal 2016-007193
Application 12/555,369
modifications to Hoogerwerf based on Wilson’s teachings, as well as the
Examiner’s modifications to Hoogerwerf based on Hall’s teachings, would
have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 4, 7—14, 16, 18, and 19, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
Claim 3
Appellants argue: “Although measurements of symbol phase error,
symbol magnitude error, and/or symbol error vector magnitude have been
used for data extraction, there is nothing in the record to suggest that such
measurements have been used for authenticating a mobile transceiver and/or
‘fingerprinting’ or that this possibility was even recognized.” App. Br. 22;
see also Reply Br. 5.
On this record, Appellants have not persuasively shown any error in
the Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 3. Further, we concur with the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner reasons “any of the elements and/or subset of these
qualities would have been obvious to a skilled artisan given the predictable
benefit of system customization and signal evaluation.” Final Act. 7—8. We
agree. In particular, Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s finding with
respect to claim 1 that Hoogerwerf teaches (claim 1) “characterizing the
authenticated mobile transceivers according to the phase demodulated
outputs.” Final Act. 5. Given that Hoogerwerf teaches characterizing or
fingerprinting, and given that the measurements recited in the claim
7
Appeal 2016-007193
Application 12/555,369
themselves are known, using those measurements for characterization as
claimed would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
417.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Claim 5
Appellants argue:
[Although radio frequency error and frame SYNC correlation
error have been used for the extraction of data from radio
signals, there is nothing in the record to suggest that such
properties have any utility for “fingerprinting” (e.g.,
differentiating between) transmitters sending the same data.
The prior art is silent with respect to the possibility that these
measurements of a signal could be used for fingerprinting
despite the fact that these signals are more readily available in
normal transceivers than the signals used in the prior art.
App. Br. 23; see also Reply Br. 5.
On this record, Appellants have not persuasively shown any error in
the Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 5. Further, we concur with the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for the same reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 3.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.
Claim 6
Appellants argue: “Though measurements of carrier frequency offset,
symbol clock offset and/or SYNC correlation may have been accomplished
in isolation in the past, there is nothing in the record to suggest that such
8
Appeal 2016-007193
Application 12/555,369
measurements have been performed for authenticating a mobile transceiver
and/or ‘fingerprinting.’” App. Br. 24.
On this record, Appellants have not persuasively shown any error in
the Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 6. Further, we concur with the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for the same reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 3.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2 and 17 over Hoogerwerf,
Hall, Wilson, and either Pazhyannur or Cartmell
Claims 2 and 17 depend from claims 1 and 16, respectively.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for claims 2 and 17. See App.
Br. 10—24; Reply Br. 2—5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 17 for
the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 20 over Hoogerwerf, Hall,
Wilson, and Filimonov
Claim 20 is an independent claim. Appellants do not present separate
arguments for claim 20. See App. Br. 10—24; Reply Br. 2—5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 for the
same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14 and 16—20 is affirmed.
9
Appeal 2016-007193
Application 12/555,369
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).
AFFIRMED
10