Ex Parte Malinen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2012

10954197 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JOUNI I. MALINEN and JUSSI E. MAKI
____________________

Appeal 2010-003176
Application 10/954,197
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003176
Application 10/954,197

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
133. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to a method and system to contextually
initiate synchronization services and context dependent security features in
communication with mobile terminals in an enterprise environment. Spec.
pg. 1, 3. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system to provide security features to a wireless
mobile device based on its context, comprising:
a first middleware program stored in a memory of a
wireless mobile device, having a plurality of security process
subroutines selectable by a command;
a second middleware program stored in a memory of a
wireless access point device, having a plurality of security
process subroutines selectable by said command;
a third middleware program stored in a memory of a
server in a network coupled to said access point device, having
a plurality of security process subroutines selectable by said
command;
a context manager program in said server for
determining a context for said wireless mobile device from a
signal received from said access point indicating that said
wireless mobile device is wirelessly connected to said access
point;
a database coupled to said server for storing security
feature data accessible by said determined context to implement
a security process;
said context manager accessing said stored security
feature data based on said determined context and sending a
command representing said security feature data to said first,
second, and third middleware programs to implement said
Appeal 2010-003176
Application 10/954,197

3
security process in said wireless mobile device, said access
point device, and said server, respectively.
(Emphasis added).

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Fishman
Davidson
Putman
US 2003/0018887 A1
US 2003/0027553 A1
US 2008/0086564 A1
Jan. 23, 2003
Feb. 6, 2003
Apr. 10, 2008

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-90 and 92-133 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Putman and Fishman. Ans. 3-39.
Claim 91 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fishman, Putman, and Davidson. Ans. 39-41.

OPINION
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Putman does not teach or suggest a context
manager for “accessing stored security feature data based on the determined
context and then sending a command representing the security feature data
to the first, second, and third middleware programs to implement the
security process in the wireless mobile device, the end-point device, and the
server, respectively,” as claimed in independent claim 1. Br. 12-13.
Appellants argue that Putman fails to disclose an access point as claimed.
Appeal 2010-003176
Application 10/954,197

4
Br. 13. Appellants also contend that Putman “lacks any teaching or
suggestion of sending a command representing the security feature data to
the first, second, and third middleware programs to implement the security
process in the wireless mobile device, the end-point device, and the server,
respectively, as claimed.” App Br. 14. Furthermore, Appellants contend
combining the Putman and Fishman references would result in disjointed list
of communication features. Br. 14-15. Appellants argue that there is no
motivation to combine the access point of Fishman with Putman that
discloses no such access point. Br. 15-16.
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellants’ arguments (Br. 12-18), we decide this appeal
based on representative claim 1 for the group consisting of claims 1-91 and
92-133. Because Appellants make no separate argument for the rejection of
dependent claim 91, it stands or falls with representative claim 1.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009).

Issues
Did the Examiner err in finding Putman and Fishman teach or suggest
(i) a context manager and access point, (ii) security features, (iii) accessing
of stored security feature data based on the determined context, and (iv)
sending a command representing the security feature data to the first,
second, and third middleware programs to implement the security process in
Appeal 2010-003176
Application 10/954,197

5
the wireless mobile device, the end-point device, and the server,
respectively, as required in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants assert that Putman fails to teach or suggest a context
manager for determining a context for a mobile device from a signal
received from an access point. Br. 13, 15. The Examiner found that Putman
disclosed a communication application server (CAS) that acts as the claimed
context manager and Fishman discloses a wireless access point. Ans. 42.
We agree with the Examiner. Putman discloses the CAS provides the
context determination for communication services. Ans. 3-4, 42; Putman ¶
0036. Furthermore, Putman need not disclose the access point since the
Examiner relies on Fishman for teaching a wireless access point that uses
access protocols for connecting wireless devices. Ans. 4, 43; Fishman ¶¶
0031, 0032. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that there
would have been no reason to modify Putman to include access points as
taught by Fishman (see Br. 15-16). The Examiner has articulated a reason
with a rational underpinning (Ans. 4-5) and Appellants have not presented
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
findings.
We also disagree with Appellants’ argument that Putman and Fishman
fail to disclose the claimed security features or sending a command
representing the security features to the claimed middleware programs. Br.
Appeal 2010-003176
Application 10/954,197

6
14-15. As the Examiner found, Putman expressly discloses the CAS may be
configured to address issues such as “context of the callee and/or caller;
[and] management of security” (Putman ¶ 0036). Ans. 4, 42. We agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Putman discloses core federated services that
include security, a database for storing security data and security processes
implemented based on context. Ans. 4 (citing Putman ¶¶ 0036, 0056, 0057,
0061). Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ contentions (App. Br. 15, 16),
Putman teaches storing security feature data and accessing the stored
security feature data based on determined context as recited in claim 1.
With respect to the claim 1 limitation of sending a command
representing the security feature data to the first, second, and third
middleware programs to implement the security process in the devices
containing the middleware programs, Appellants further contend that the
Examiner offers a strained interpretation of Putman’s disclosed SIP-based
technologies and fails to point out the claim limitations in sufficient detail to
make a prima facie case of obviousness. Br. 17. The Examiner found that
Putman teaches that the CAS is the claimed server that is responsive to
external devices (end-point devices) and provides at least one
communication service at the required middleware programs. Ans. 43 (citing
Putman Abstract).
We agree with the Examiner that Putman (Abstract, ¶¶ 0035-0037,
0041, 0061) in combination with Fishman (¶¶ 0030, 0031) discloses the
claimed server and middleware servers that support the determination of
services available at the external devices. Ans. 43-44. Specifically, we agree
that these services include security and authorization services between the
first, second and third components identified by the Examiner as the mobile
Appeal 2010-003176
Application 10/954,197

7
device (¶ 0035), the end-point device (Putman ¶ 0036) and server (Putman
¶ 0037), respectively. Ans. 3, 43-44. The CAS initiates various
“communication services” based on context by initiating a service “as a data
request, voice request or other suitable format” that are provided
“transparently to the initiator of the ‘establish call’ service.” Putman ¶ 0036.
The Examiner further found that Putman discloses the CAS that initiates the
services (Ans. 3-4 (citing Putman ¶¶ 0035- 0037)); is capable of processing
requests, determining one or more executable tasks and establishing
communication with a server to carry out tasks (Ans. 43-44 (citing Putman,
Abstract)).
We disagree that the Examiner’s interpretation of Putman’s numerous
services (or SIP-based technologies (Putman ¶ 00037)) that can be
implemented by the CAS is strained. The Examiner correctly finds that
Putman discloses an example of the CAS implementing services and
applications in including “well-known conventional functionality” that
include security. Ans. 4 (citing Putman ¶¶ 0067-0070). With respect to
Fishman, the Examiner determined that Fishman also discloses the
middleware running security features (Ans. 43-44 (citing Fishman ¶ 0030))
as well as the access point (Ans. 42 (citing Fishman ¶¶ 0031, 0032)). We
agree with the Examiner’s findings that Fishman in combination with the
CAS in Putman provides services and functions that meet the limitation of
sending a command representing the security feature data to the first,
second, and third middleware programs to implement the security process in
the wireless mobile device, the end-point device, and the server as claimed.
Ans. 3-4; 43-44.
Appeal 2010-003176
Application 10/954,197

8
Accordingly, we find that Putman and Fishman disclose the claim 1
limitation of sending a command representing the security feature data to the
first, second, and third middleware programs to implement the security
process in the devices containing the middleware programs.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s finding that
Putman and Fishman disclose or suggest (i) a context manager and access
point, (ii) security features, (iii) accessing of stored security feature data
based on the determined context, and (iv) sending a command representing
the security feature data to the first, second, and third middleware programs
to implement the security process in the wireless mobile device, the end-
point device, and the server, respectively, as found in representative claim 1.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 or claims 2-90,
92-133 and 91 not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in the rejection of claim 1-90 and 92-133
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) over Putman and Fishman.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 92 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) over Putman, Fishman and Davidson.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-133 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) (2009).
Appeal 2010-003176
Application 10/954,197

9

AFFIRMED

msc