Ex Parte MahalingaiahDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 15, 201512421505 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 12/421,505 89955 7590 HONEYWELL/IPL Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 FILING DATE 0410912009 12/17/2015 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Pradeep Mahalingaiah 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. H0021731 (002.1301) 4620 EXAMINER ELAHI, SHANE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/17/2015 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com docketing@ifllaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) ~UNITED STATES PATENT AND TR~ADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PRADEEP MAHALINGAIAH Appeal2014-000441 Application 12/421,505 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, KEVIN C. TROCK, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-20, all claims currently pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's disclosure is directed to systems and methods to provide "access to vehicle health maintenance information within a vehicle" and "to Appeal2014-000441 Application 12/421,505 provide remote access to the health information [of a vehicle] by a plurality of users." Abstract. Claims 1, 12, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis added: 1. A system for securely accessing a source of data from a vehicle, comprising: an internet protocol (IP) network; a remote communication device in communication with the IP network, the remote communication device being configured to transmit and receive data; and a first intermediary computing device within the IP network, the intermediary computing device preventing communication between the remote communication device and the source of the data, wherein the first intermediary computing device is configured to allow communications between the remote communication device and the source of the data when the first intermediary computing device determines that a first source internet protocol (SrcIP) address of the remote communication device is an authorized first SrcIP address; a second intermediary computing device within the network and behind the first intermediary computing device, the second intermediary computing device preventing communication between the remote communication device and the source of the data, wherein the second intermediary computing device is configured to allow communications between the remote communication device and the source of the data when the second intermediary computing device determines that a second Src!P address of the remote communication device is an authorized second Src!P address, the authorized second Src!P address being different from the authorized first Src!P address. References and Rejections Claims 1, 2, and 4--11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Conzachi (US 2007/0115938 Al; May 24, 2007) 2 Appeal2014-000441 Application 12/421,505 and Stallings et al., Cryptography and Network Security, ISBN 0-13- 091429-0, pp. 485-503 (hereinafter, "Stallings"). Final Act. 6. Claims 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu (US 7,852,861 B2; Dec. 14, 2010) and Stallings. Final Act. 13. ISSUES Appellant's arguments present us with the following issues: A. Did the Examiner err in rejecting independent claim 1, because the cited references do not teach or suggest determining a second SrcIP address of the remote communication device that is different from a first SrcIP address, as claimed? B. Did the Examiner err in rejecting independent claim 12, because the cited references do not teach or suggest assigning a second SrcIP address to the remote communication device, as claimed? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2-21; Ans. 3-10) as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. A. Claim 1 Appellant contends Stallings does not show "that a first and a second SrcIP address for the same remote computing device are contained in the original or the new IP header of Stallings. Or, that both the first and a 3 Appeal2014-000441 Application 12/421,505 second SrcIP addresses, if they exist, are determined by the firewall to be valid." Br. 11. The Examiner finds the recited use of a second SrcIP address is well known in the art as evidenced by Stallings. See Ans. 5---6 (citing Stallings Fig. 16.9). We agree, and find the recited "second SrcIP address of the remote communication device" encompasses the outer IP header of Stallings because, in Stallings, "the source address of the outer IP header is uniquely linked to the original source address of the encapsulated packet by virtue of the IPsec tunnel." Ans. 5, see also Stallings page 500 (describing a system to "encapsulate the entire block ... with a new IP header that will contain sufficient information for routing") and Stallings pages 493--494 (describing the IP header has fields that include the Source Address). Further, Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive as they focus on the individual teachings of Stallings, and thus do not persuasively address the combination of references on which the Examiner relies. 1 See Br. 10-13. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify Conzachi' s system for remote communication for aircraft maintenance (see Conzachi Figs. 1-7) with the teachings of tunneling (using second IP address headers) in Stallings, in order to determine the second SrcIP address as claimed (see Stallings page 490 and Fig. 16.9). See Ans. 4--5 ("each firewall at either end of the IPsec tunnel [of Stallings] performs both of the above determinations for inbound/ outbound packets in a two-way IP communication"). The combination of Conzachi 1 "But one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). 4 Appeal2014-000441 Application 12/421,505 and Stallings, as found by the Examiner, is no "more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2 and 4--11 which are not argued separately. See Br. 13. B. Claim 12 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12, as Stallings does not teach "the outer packet includes a source IP address that is directly associated with the inner IP source address." Br. 13-14. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. First, we note Appellant's argument is not commensurate with the claim, because claim 12 is silent regarding a "directly associated" address. Second, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that Stallings teaches or suggests the second SrcIP address within the meaning of claim 12. See Final Act. 13-15. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wu and Stallings teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 12. See Ans. 8-9 (citing Wu Figs. 6, 7, 9), see also Stallings page 489 (describing the Security Policy Database entry defined by Source IP Address). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 12, and claims 13-20 which are not argued separately. See Br. 14. 5 Appeal2014-000441 Application 12/421,505 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-- 20 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED dw 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation