Ex Parte Gustave et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 22, 2010

10970137 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2010)

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.
10/970,137 10/22/2004 Christophe Gustave ALC 3152 5686
7590 09/22/2010
KRAMER & AMADO, P.C.
Suite 240
1725 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
HO, HUY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHE GUSTAVE, VINOD KUMAR CHOYI,
and FREDERIC GARIADOR
____________________

Appeal 2009-007807
Application 10/970,1371
Technology Center 2600

____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF,
and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is Alcatel-Lucent.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007807
Application 10/970,137

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for authenticating peer
mobile network nodes for establishing a secure peer-to-peer communications
context in an ad-hoc network. At low bandwidth, wireless infrastructure
network entities are accessed for short time duration to obtain cryptographic
information regarding a peer mobile network node. Once a wireless network
node receives the cryptographic information regarding the peer mobile
network node, the peer network node is challenged with a challenge phrase
derived from the cryptographic information. Once a valid response is
received, the secure peer-to-peer communications link is established.
(Abstract).
Claim 18 is exemplary:
18 A mobile network node adhering to a wireless communications
protocol for connection to a peer mobile network node in an ad-hoc network,
the mobile network node comprising:
a. an authentication information cache for caching authentication
information regarding a plurality of mobile network nodes expected to
require local authentication; and
b. authentication information serving means for serving a pair of
mobile network nodes of the plurality of mobile network nodes with
authentication information for establishing at least one cross-authenticated
secure peer-to-peer communications context, between the pair of mobile
network nodes.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Naghian US 2004/0179502 A1 Sep. 16, 2004
2
Appeal 2009-007807
Application 10/970,137

Moloney US 2005/0266798 A1 Dec. 1, 2005

Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Moloney.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Moloney in view of Naghian.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed July 28, 2008) and the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed December 24, 2008), for their respective details.

ISSUES
Appellants contend that, since the contact directory of Moloney
merely stores an authorization identifier with a contact entry for all devices
with which the node has already communicated, Moloney does not disclose
an “authentication information cache for caching authentication information
regarding a plurality of mobile network nodes expected to require local
authentication” (App. Br. 7-8). Appellants argue that the combination of
Moloney and Naghian does not disclose that authentication information is
received directly from the home location register (App. Br. 10 and 12).
Appellants assert further that Naghian does not disclose that a first mobile
node operating in a first protocol may connect to a second mobile node
operating in a second protocol, as recited in claim 14 (App. Br. 14).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following three issues:
1. Does Moloney disclose “authentication information cache for
caching authentication information regarding a plurality of mobile network
nodes expected to require local authentication”?
3
Appeal 2009-007807
Application 10/970,137

2. Does the combination of Moloney and Naghian disclose “the
authentication information received directly from a home environment
associated with the peer mobile network node”?
3. Does the combination of Moloney and Naghian disclose a first
mobile node operating in a first wireless protocol may connect to a second
mobile node operating in a second wireless protocol?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. Given the scenario where mobile network users attend a retreat
outside of the coverage area of any wireless infrastructure, mobile network
node 203 retrieves cryptographic information regarding mobile network
nodes 202 expected to be present at the retreat. Mobile network node 203
caches the cryptographic information for the purposes of providing home
environment 210 functionality. Accordingly, the mobile network node 203
operates as a “floating” Authentication Center (AuC) 210, providing each
mobile network nodes 202 within reach access to the cached cryptographic
information (Spec. ¶ [39]).
Moloney
2. Moloney discloses that when devices 104 and 106 are within a
wireless communication range of each other, an insecure link or a secure
link 102 may be established. Wireless mobile device 106 includes a contact
directory 610 having group association 612 and a security association 614
entries for each mobile device in the network. The group association 612
4
Appeal 2009-007807
Application 10/970,137

may be used to lookup policies in connection policies 616. When a secured
channel has failed to be established due to lack of security information
corresponding to the contact entry or lack of initialization, the user is queried
with options as to whether to enable a secured link based upon connection
policies (Figs. 6, 9, ¶¶ [0048], [0063], [0064], and [0086]-[0089]).
Naghian
3. Naghian discloses that a trunk node 101 collects International
Mobile Subscriber Identities (IMSIs) from a set of ad-hoc nodes 102 (step
300). Each of the ad-hoc nodes 102 is served over one or more hops,
depending upon the number of other ad-hoc nodes 102 that exist between the
trunk node 101 and the particular ad-hoc node. The trunk node 101
maintains a node-specific record for each of the served ad-hoc nodes 102.
After a successful authentication, the ad-hoc IMSI set collected at step 300 is
sent from the trunk node to the Authentication Centre (AuC)/ Home
Location Register (HLR) 225 of the Core Network (CN) (step 304). The
AuC/HLR 225 generates an authentication vector for each of the IMSIs
containing a network challenge (RAND), an expected user response
(XRES), a network authentication token (AUTN), a cipher key (CK), and an
integrity key (IK). Within a user authentication request, the RAND and
AUTN related to each ad-hoc IMSI are returned to the trunk node (step 306).
Trunk node 101 then stores (step 307) and forwards each parameter pair
(RAND/AUTN) to the corresponding ad-hoc node 102 (step 308) (Figs. 2
and 3; ¶¶ [0042] – [0044]).
4. Naghian discloses an ad-hoc trunk node may include an
interface 611 that offers connectivity to a GSM or UMTS network, while
interface [610] offers connectivity to a WLAN network (Fig. 6; ¶ [0057]).
5
Appeal 2009-007807
Application 10/970,137

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
Anticipation pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 102 is established when a single
prior art reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency
each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v.
IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Obviousness
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.

ANALYSIS
Claim 18
Independent claim 18 recites “authentication information cache for
caching authentication information regarding a plurality of mobile network
nodes expected to require local authentication.”
We do not consider Appellants’ arguments, outlined supra, to be
persuasive to show Examiner error. Specifically, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Moloney teaches a mobile device which comprises a
storage memory for providing group authentication contact information to
any other devices located within a proximity serving area for a social event
(Ans. 11-12; FF 2). Moloney discloses that when devices 104 and 106 are
6
Appeal 2009-007807
Application 10/970,137

within wireless communication range of each other, an insecure link or a
secure link 102 may be established (FF 2). When a secured channel has not
been established due to lack of security information corresponding to the
contact entry or lack of initialization, the user is queried with options as to
whether to enable a secured link based upon connection policies (FF 2).
Thus, similar to the Appellants’ scenario where the mobile network users
attend a retreat, cryptographic information is retrieved and cached within
wireless device B (FF 1 and 2). The Specification provides that mobile
network node 203 forwards to each mobile network node 202 within reach
access to the cached cryptographic information (FF 1). Similarly, when
devices 104 and 106 disclosed in Moloney are within a wireless
communication range of each other, a secure link 102 maybe established at
anytime since the user is queried if there is a lack of security information in
the contact directory 610 (FF 2).
Therefore, we find that Moloney discloses the “authentication
information cache for caching authentication information regarding a
plurality of mobile network nodes expected to require local authentication.”
As a result, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 18.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite “the authentication information
received directly from a home environment associated with the peer mobile
network node.”
We consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. Specifically, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding
that Naghian discloses authentication information received directly from a
home environment associated with the peer mobile network node (Ans. 5-6).
7
Appeal 2009-007807
Application 10/970,137

Although Naghian discloses that authentication information is received
directly from the Authentication Center/ Home Location Register
(AuC/HLR) 225, Naghian is silent as to the authentication information being
directly sent from the AuC/HLR 225 to the wireless mobile network nodes
102 (FF 3). Naghian discloses that AuC/HLR 225 generates an
authentication vector for each of the International Mobile Subscriber
Identities (IMSIs) containing a network challenge (RAND), an expected user
response (XRES), a network authentication token (AUTN), a cipher key
(CK), and an integrity key (IK) (FF 3). The RAND and the AUTN related to
each ad-hoc IMSI are returned to the trunk node (FF 3). The trunk node 101
forwards each parameter pair (RAND/AUTN) to the corresponding ad-hoc
node 102 (FF 3). Therefore, the delivery of cryptographic information is
sent to each node indirectly through trunk node 101 and not directly from
AuC/HLR 225 (FF 3).
We find that the Examiner has not established the prima facie
obviousness of the claims, because the combination of Moloney and
Naghian does not disclose that “the authentication information [is] received
directly from a home environment associated with the peer mobile network
node.” As a result, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claims 1 and 8 and that of dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, and
13.
Claims 14-17
We select claim 14 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
8
Appeal 2009-007807
Application 10/970,137

Independent claim 14 recites that a first mobile node operating in a
first wireless protocol may connect to a second mobile node operating in a
second wireless protocol.
We do not consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Naghian discloses that various interface protocols are used between the
trunk node 101 and network nodes 102 (Ans. 5; FF 4). Naghian discloses an
ad-hoc trunk node may include an interface 611 that offers connectivity to a
GSM or UMTS network, while interface [610] offers connectivity to a
WLAN network (FF 4).
We find that the Examiner has established the prima facie obviousness
of the claims, because the combination of Moloney and Naghian discloses a
decoder that a first mobile node operating in a first wireless protocol may
connect to a second mobile node operating in a second wireless protocol. As
a result, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of representative
claim 14 and that of dependent claims 15-17.

CONCLUSIONS
Moloney discloses “authentication information cache for caching
authentication information regarding a plurality of mobile network nodes
expected to require local authentication.”
The combination of Moloney and Naghian does not disclose “the
authentication information received directly from a home environment
associated with the peer mobile network node.”
9
Appeal 2009-007807
Application 10/970,137

The combination of Moloney and Naghian discloses that a first mobile
node operating in a first wireless protocol may connect to a second mobile
node operating in a second wireless protocol.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-18 is affirmed. The Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13 is reversed.
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).

10
Appeal 2009-007807
Application 10/970,137

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ELD

KRAMER & AMADO, P.C.
SUITE 240
1725 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314

11