Ex Parte Wang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2012

10514311 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte CHARLES CHUANMING WANG,
SACHIN SATISH MODY, JUNBIAO ZHANG,
and KUMAR RAMASWAMY
________________

Appeal 2009-012369
Application 10/514,311
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012369
Application 10/514,311

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-14:
(I) Claims 1-9 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Zhang (US 2002/0174335 A1; published Nov. 21,
2002); and
(II) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Zhang in view of Luo (US 2003/0169713 A1; published Sep. 11,
2003).
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe their invention as follows:
A public wireless LAN (11) permits receipt of non-
authentication traffic, such as access information requests, from
a mobile wireless communications device (121) prior to device
authentication by partially opening a controlled port within an
access point (181). The wireless LAN re-directs such non-
authentication traffic received at the AP from the mobile
wireless communications to a local web server (21). The local
web server provides reply to the mobile wireless
communications device, enabling a determination by the device
whether or not to request access. The device seeks access by
way of an access request received at the AP. In response, the
AP re-directs the access request through an uncontrolled port in
the AP to an access server (26) that authenticates device. Upon
successful device authentication, the AP fully opens its
controlled port to permit the exchange of traffic through that
port with the mobile wireless communications device.
Abstract.
Appeal 2009-012369
Application 10/514,311

3
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of claims 1-7:
1. A method for authenticating a mobile wireless
communications device in a public wireless Local Area
Network (LAN), comprising the steps of:
receiving a request for non-authentication information;
partially opening a controlled port in an access point
through which the non-authentication information request is
directed to a first server that responds by providing a reply to
the mobile wireless communications device;
receiving an access request;
authenticating the mobile wireless communications
device; and
fully opening the controlled port in the access point to
enable the exchange of traffic with the mobile wireless
communications device through the controlled port.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following Findings of Fact (Fact) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Zhang teaches the following:
When a mobile user moves into the coverage area of an
[access point] AP 120, his [mobile terminal] MT 110 first
establishes a layer 2 connection with the AP 120. In the IEEE
802.11 term, this is called “association”. Since the virtual
operator authentication process is used, this association step
does not require any layer 2 authentication. The following
procedure describes the authentication process after the
association.
(¶ [0071]).
2. Zhang teaches the following:
Central to the operation of the inventive system is a
filtering function (not shown) installed on every AP 120. It is
Appeal 2009-012369
Application 10/514,311

4
similar to the firewall function and filters all mobile traffic and
determines whether the traffic should be let through
(authenticated user traffic with the session key), sent to the
authentication engine (login session traffic), or blocked
(unauthorized traffic).
(¶ [0066]).
3. Zhang teaches the following:
1. The AP 120 assigns the MT 110 a dynamic [internet
protocol] IP address with the help of a [dynamic host
configuration protocol] DHCP server. The AP 120 also installs
a filter for the IP address. At this stage, all IP traffic from this
address is filtered and terminated by the AP 120 and assumed to
be authentication packets.
(¶ [0074]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill
in the art when read in the context of the specification and
prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). There are only two exceptions
to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and
acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows
the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or
during prosecution. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996). . . .
To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly
set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its
plain and ordinary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick
Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). It is not enough
for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a
word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must
“clearly express an intent” to redefine the term. . . .
The standard for disavowal of claim scope is similarly
exacting. . . . “The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate
Appeal 2009-012369
Application 10/514,311

5
from the ordinary and accustomed meaning of a claim term by
including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion
or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”
Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, No. 2011-1114, slip op. at 4-6
(Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2012) (citations omitted).

ANALYSIS
I. Analysis of claims 1-7 under § 103(a)
Appellants group claims 1-7 together (App. Br. 6). Accordingly, we
select independent claim 1 as representative of these claims.
In concluding that Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1, the
Examiner relies on Zhang’s mobile station’s request for an IP address as
corresponding to the claimed “a request for non-authentication information”
(Ans. 3 (citing Zhang ¶ [0071])).
Appellants argue that Zhang does not teach the claim 1 limitation of
“partially opening a controlled port in an access point through which the
non-authentication information request is directed to a first server” because
Zhang’s IP address cannot be interpreted as the claimed “non-authentication
information” (Reply Br. 5-6; App. Br. 8-9). Appellants contend this is
because the Examiner’s interpretation using the plain meaning of “non-
authentication information” is inconsistent with the Specification (Reply Br.
6). Appellants assert that the Specification describes “access information,
terms and conditions of access, [and] access cost” as examples of non-
authentication information and these examples do not include Zhang’s IP
address (Reply Br. 6-7). Appellants argue that “since a dynamic IP address
is assigned for authentication purposes, and is previously available to a
mobile device prior to establishing an authentication session, interpreting the
Appeal 2009-012369
Application 10/514,311

6
IP address as ‘non-authentication information’ is inconsistent with the
Specification” (Reply Br. 6).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Appellants do not provide
convincing evidence to support that the Specification expressly defines
“non-authentication information” or disavows the full scope of the claim
term (see Reply Br. 5-7; App. Br. 8-9). See Thorner, at 4-6. Appellants
merely cite to non-limiting examples of non-authentication information (see
Reply Br. 6; Spec. 5:13-15). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“non-authentication information” includes any information that is not
authentication information.
Zhang’s IP address may be reasonably interpreted as constituting
“non-authentication information” because Zhang states the IEEE 802.11
“association step,” which uses the IP address, “‘does not require any layer 2
authentication’” (Ans. 3 (quoting Zhang ¶ [0071])). As such, the IP address
request is part of the association step, not the subsequent authentication
process (Fact 1). Thus, Zhang’s IP address may be reasonably interpreted as
corresponding to the claimed “non-authentication information.”
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim and
dependent claims 2-7 which fall with claim 1.

II. Analysis of claims 8-14 under § 103(a)
Claim 8 recites the following:
8. A communications network for authenticating a mobile
wireless communications device, comprising:
a first server for storing non-authentication information;
Appeal 2009-012369
Application 10/514,311

7
a second server for authenticating the mobile wireless
communications device;
at least one access point having (a) controlled port via
which the access point partially opens in response to a receipt
of a request for non-authentication information from a mobile
wireless communications device and for directing the non-
authentication information request to the first server which
sends a reply for receipt by the mobile wireless
communications device, and (b) an uncontrolled port through
which the access point directs authentication traffic received
from the mobile wireless communications device to the second
server which exchanges authentication traffic with the mobile
wireless communications device; and
a public wireless Local Area Network (LAN) coupled to
the one AP and said first and second servers.
Zhang discloses a “filtering function” installed on all access points
that filters all mobile traffic and determines whether the traffic should be let
through, sent to an authentication engine, or blocked (Fact 2; Ans. 7).
In concluding that Zhang teaches or suggest the limitations of claim 8,
the Examiner relies on Zhang’s access point and its associated filtering
function (Ans. 6-7). Before association, Zhang discloses that a message is
sent to a DHCP server for an IP address (Facts 2, 3). The Examiner
interprets this as corresponding to the claim limitation “(a) controlled port
via which the access point partially opens in response to a receipt of a
request for non-authentication information from a mobile wireless
communications device and for directing the non-authentication information
request to the first server . . . ” (Ans. 6-7).
After the mobile terminal is associated with the access point and is
assigned an IP address, and while the mobile terminal is being authenticated,
Zhang’s access point filters traffic by IP address and sends authentication
Appeal 2009-012369
Application 10/514,311

8
packets to the authentication server (Ans. 6-7, 13-14; Facts 2, 3). The
Examiner relies on this filtered connection through the access point during
the authentication steps, as corresponding to the claim limitation “(b) an
uncontrolled port through which the access point directs authentication
traffic received from the mobile wireless communications device to the
second server which exchanges authentication traffic with the mobile
wireless communications device” (Ans. 6-7, 13-14).
Appellants argue that
[w]hile Zhang discloses various steps concerning dual
authentication between a wireless mobile device and a [wireless
local area network] WLAN as well as accounting procedures,
nowhere does Zhang disclose a controlled port and an
uncontrolled port, nor does Zhang disclose how its methods are
implemented in relation to such ports.
(App. Br. 10-12).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. There is insufficient
evidence for the Examiner to find that Zhang’s access point has both a
controlled port and an uncontrolled port. Specifically Zhang’s paragraphs
[0066] and [0074], cited by the Examiner (Ans. 6-7, 12-13; Facts 2, 3), are
insufficient to establish that Zhang’s filtering function implies the presence
of both controlled and uncontrolled ports as recited by the claims. For
example, the Examiner has not explained why a single port could not
perform both of Zhang’s filtering function.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, as
well as independent claim 13, which has similar limitations as claim 8. We
likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 9, 11, 12, and 14,
which depend from independent claims 8 and 13.
Appeal 2009-012369
Application 10/514,311

9
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 10, which depends from claim 8. The additionally cited
reference, Luo, does not cure the deficiency of the obviousness rejection of
claim 8 as explained above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-14 is reversed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc