Ex Parte Gunasekara et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

13793511 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131793,511 03/11/2013 Don Gunasekara
58406 7590 03/30/2018
BARRY W. CHAPIN, ESQ.
CHAPIN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, LLC
352 Turnpike Road
Suite 110
Southborough, MA 01772
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TWC13-05(13-03) 8467
EXAMINER
JAMSHIDI, GHODRAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
docket@chapin-ip-law. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENT KARLSSON, OLA HALLMARKER, MARTIN
LINDEROTH, and DAG HENRIKSSON
Appeal2017-009282
Application 13/793 ,511 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 11 through 18, 20 through 23, 28
through 33, and 35 through 45. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a technique for building trust in a wireless
network that a device is connecting to. Spec. 2-3.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Time Warner Cable
LLC of New York. App. Br. 2
Appeal2017-009282
Application 13/793,511
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
receiving a communication from a wireless access point,
the wireless access point providing a corresponding computer
device access to a core network to which the wireless access
point is communicatively coupled, the wireless access point
receiving the communication over a wireless communication
link from the corresponding computer device;
retrieving display information previously selected by a
subscriber operating the corresponding computer device, the
display information being unique information associated with
the subscriber; and
initiating display of a rendition of the display information
on a display screen of the corresponding computer device for
viewing by the subscriber,
the rendition of the display information indicating that
the wireless access point and the wireless communication link,
through which the corresponding computer device has access to
servers in the core network, are part of a service provider
network to which the subscriber subscribes.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 9, 11through18, 20 through
22, 26, 29 through 23, and 38 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hoggan (US 2013/0247164 Al, published Sept. 19, 2013)
and Pritikin (US 2008/0082821 Al, published Apr. 3, 2008). Final Act. 4--
24.2
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed December 28,
2016 ("App. Br."), the Reply Brief, filed June 21, 2017 ("Reply Br."), the
Examiner's Answer, mailed April 21, 2017 ("Answer"), and the Final Office
Action, mailed May 19, 2016 ("Final Act").
2
Appeal2017-009282
Application 13/793,511
The Examiner has rejected claims 3 through 5, 8, 23, 28, and 43
through 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoggan, Pritikin
and Jabara et al. (US 2012/0202185 Al, published Aug. 9, 2012). Final Act.
24--29.
The Examiner has rejected claims 35 through 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hoggan, Pritikin and Osborn et al. (US
2007/0277224 Al, published Nov. 29, 2007). Final Act. 29--32.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 9, 16, 21and29.
Independent claim 1
Appellants argue independent claim 1 recites displaying information
that indicates that the wireless access point and link through which the
corresponding computer device communicates to servers in the core network
are part of the a service provider network to which the subscriber subscribes,
which is not taught by either Hoggan or Pritikin. App. Br. 16-20.
Appellants argue that Hogan, is concerned with the service provider not
trusting the communication device and there is no indication directed to the
mobile device not trusting the wireless access point. App. Br. 17-18.
Further, Appellants argue that Pritikin teaches the SiteKey which indicates
the user is connected to a valid server in a network and is not an indication
3
Appeal2017-009282
Application 13/793,511
of their service provider (wireless connection) conveying the webpage.
App. Br. 18.
The Examiner, in the rejection relies upon Pritikin to disclose the
disputed limitation stating the:
Pritikin discloses that the system retrieves a previously inputted
image by the user and displays the image as a way of assuring
the user that she/he is connected to the intended source because
the image has been previously selected by the user (unique
information associated with the subscriber and there is no man-
in-the-middle attack. See paragraphs [009-0011].
Final Ans. 5. Further, in response to the Appellants' arguments, "the use of
a SiteKey and the authentication through challenge/Response process
indicates that the communication is with the intended service provided
through intended link." Answer 2.
We have reviewed the Examiner's Rejection, response to Appellants'
arguments and the cited teachings of Hoggan or Pritikin. We do not find
that the Examiner has identified sufficient evidence or rationale to show that
the combination of the references teach displaying information that indicates
the wireless access point and wireless link, through which the corresponding
computer device communicates to servers in the core network are part of the
a service provider network to which the subscriber subscribes. As argued by
the Appellants, on page 18 of the Appeal Brief, the SiteKey of Pritkin is
merely identifying to the user that the device is connected to the desired
website (and not the man in the middle). Pritkin i-f 10. Further, the
Examiner has not shown how this teaching of Pritikin coupled with
Hoggan's challenge/Response coupled with the SiteKey teaches the claimed
indication the wireless access point and link are part of the a service provider
4
Appeal2017-009282
Application 13/793,511
network to which the subscriber subscribes. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and the claims which
depend upon claim 1.
Independent claim 21
Appellants argue that independent claim 21, includes a similar
limitation to that discussed with respect to claim 1 and as such the rejection
is in error for the same reasons. App. Br. 27. We concur and similarly do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 21 and the claims
which depend upon claim 21.
Independent claim 9
With respect to independent claim 9, Appellants argue the claim
recites the service provider authentication page includes a notification
indicating an identity of the service provider supporting the wireless link
between the access point and the computer. App. Br. 24. Appellants argue
that the SiteKey of Pritikin, relied upon by the Examiner, does not have
anything to do with the wireless communication link or the wireless access
point. App Br. 24
The Examiner's rejection of claim 9, and response to Appellants'
arguments, provides a rationale similar to that discussed above with respect
to claim 1. Final Act 8-9, Ans. 4.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, we do not find the
Examiner has identified sufficient evidence or rationale to show that the
combination of the references teach providing information that indicates the
provider of the wireless link between the wireless access point and the
5
Appeal2017-009282
Application 13/793,511
computer device. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 9 and the claims which depend upon claim 9.
Independent clam 29
Appellants argue that independent claim 29, includes a similar
limitation to that discussed with respect to claim 9 and as such the rejection
is in error for the same reasons. App. Br. 28. We concur and similarly do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 2 9.
Independent clam 16
Appellants argue that independent claim 16, recites that subsequent to
authentication via the service provider authentication page receiving unique
security information associated with the user establishing the wireless
communication link and displaying the unique security information to the
user. App. Br. 32. Appellants argue that there is no indication that any
resource in Pritkin teaches receiving unique security information based upon
establishing a wireless communication link and then displaying the security
information as claimed. App. Br. 33.
The Examiner' rejection, with respect to the disputed limitation, states
"Pritikin discloses a method of bidirectional authentication wherein the
service provider server processes a user's online ID and maps the
information to the user's stored information that includes user security
information (i.e., a SiteKey, an image pre-selected by the user) and displays
the SiteKey on the user's display screen)." Final Act. 13. The Examiner's
response to Appellants' arguments refers to the response given with respect
to claims 1 and 16. Ans. 6.
6
Appeal2017-009282
Application 13/793,511
We do not find that the Examiner has identified sufficient evidence or
rationale to show that the combination of the references teaches subsequent
to authentication via a service provider authentication, receiving and
displaying unique security information as claimed. Specifically, the
Examiner has not explained how Pritikin' s bidirectional authentication and
SiteKey teach this feature. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 16 and the claims which depend upon claim
16.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 11
through 18, 20 through 23, 28 through 33, and 35 through 45 as being
anticipated by Jung is reversed.
REVERSED
7