Ex Parte Zhang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2017

14494844 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2017)

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.
14/494,844 09/24/2014 Yong Zhang FORT-014200 7193
64128 7590
MICHAEL A DESANCTIS
HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP
FINANCIAL PLAZA AT UNION SQUARE
225 UNION BOULEVARD, SUITE 150
LAKEWOOD, CO 80228
EXAMINER
KORSAK, OLEG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2017 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):
mdesanctis @ hdciplaw.com
docket @ hdciplaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONG ZHANG1
Appeal 2017-003231
Application 14/494,844
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Fortinet, Inc. as the real party in interest (Br. 3).
Appeal 2017-003231
Application 14/494,844
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless network controller of a wireless
local area network (WLAN), an authentication request relating
to a wireless client device from a wireless access point (AP)
managed by the wireless network controller;
determining, by the wireless network controller, whether
a prior authentication result associated with the wireless client
device is present in a cache of the wireless network controller;
permitting, by the wireless network controller, the
wireless client device to access the WLAN via the AP when the
prior authentication result is present and indicates the wireless
client device was successfully authenticated;
issuing, by the wireless network controller, the
authentication request to a remote authentication device
associated with the WLAN to determine a current
authentication status of the wireless client device;
receiving, by the wireless network controller, the current
authentication status of the wireless client device from the
remote authentication device;
storing, by the wireless network controller, information
regarding the current authentication status within the cache.
Rejections
Claims 1—3 and 5—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Zhang (Haojun Zhang & Yuefei Zhu, A New
Authentication And Key Management Scheme of WLAN, IEEE (2006)).
Final Act. 2—5.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Zhang and Morris (US 2007/0209081 Al, Sept. 6, 2007). Final Act. 6—7.
2
Appeal 2017-003231
Application 14/494,844
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed April 20, 2015, the
Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed February 8, 2016, and the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed July 28, 2016, for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in
the Briefs. Any other arguments that Appellant could have made, but chose
not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
On pages 2 through 8 of the Final Office Action and pages 2 through
7 of the Answer, the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to
each argument presented by the Appellant. We have reviewed this response
and concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We adopt as our
own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action (Final Act. 2—7) and the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—7). We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Section 102 rejection of claims 1-3, and 5-17 over Zhang
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 12—15), the
dispositive issues regarding whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1—3 and 5—17 are whether Zhang discloses the following limitations in claim
1 (emphasis added):2
[a] determining, by the wireless network controller,
whether a prior authentication result associated with the
2 Independent claim 10 recites subject matter similar to independent claim 1.
Br. 14—15.
3
Appeal 2017-003231
Application 14/494,844
wireless client device is present in a cache of the wireless
network controller;
[b] permitting, by the wireless network controller, the
wireless client device to access the WLAN via the AP when the
prior authentication result is present and indicates the wireless
client device was successfully authenticated'[.]
Regarding disputed limitation [a], Appellant contends:
[T]he wireless network controller and the AS are distinct and
separate elements. See, e.g., Specification at FIG. 1 (in which
both a wireless network controller and various types of
authentication servers, e.g., LDAP server 108-1, remote server
108-2 and RADIUS server 108-3, are separately depicted) and
1 [0047]. As noted above, in the context of Zhang, all
authentication requests (i.e., protocol flow or conversation
message S2 are directed to and serviced by the AS). As also
noted above, the caching described by Zhang is performed by
the AS. No caching is taught or reasonably suggested by Zhang
to be performed by a wireless network controller as required by
independent claim 1.
Br. 14 (emphasis in original omitted, emphasis added).
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Zhang discloses the
claimed “wireless network controller”:
In summary the main and only Appellant’s argument is
that all functionality (receiving, determining, permitting)
disclosed by Zhang and relevant to limitations of claims 1 -3
and 5-17 applies to AS of Zhang, which is different from
claimed wireless network controller, because it is separate from
AP as shown at FIG. 1 of Specification. However, Examiner
puts on record that no physically separate feature is currently
claimed, and the only limitation is that AP managed by the
wireless network controller (see receiving step of Claim 1 and a
client request receive module of Claim 10). Zhang teaches that
caching and other functionalities can be physically embedded
with AP: “As a good choice, APs can cache STAs’ TVPKs
transmitted from the AS. Certainly this needs some schemes to
4
Appeal 2017-003231
Application 14/494,844
ensure all TVPKs cached in APs are coherent and are updated
synchronously. There are many methods or strategies
satisfying this need. In this case, messages are first filtered by
the AP before being delivered to the AS” (Zhang, pages 4-5),
which is essentially what is claimed in claim 1. And even
motivations by Zhang and Appellant are the same. Compare
Overview, (Appeal Brief, page 7) with “Another significant
feature of our scheme is that authenticating ST As is efficient
and can be accomplished in the first protocol flow, that is, in
the foremost time. Another highlight of the proposed scheme is
that it is possible to authenticate STAs in the AP (caching
TVPKs) to prevent illegal message from transferring to the AS”
(Zhang, page 4).
Ans. 3.
In other words, in Zhang “the AS can verify it efficiently by
computing h(Token1sTA) and compares it with the previous token Token‘"'sta
cached in the AS.” Id. at 4 (citing Zhang, 3.2 (The Basic Scheme)). The
Examiner notes, “Zhang teaches that it is possible to authenticate STAs in
the AP (caching TVPKs).” Id. (citing Zhang, page 4).
In addition, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of the claims because claim 1 does not preclude the wireless network
controller and the AS from being distinct and separate elements.
Regarding disputed limitation [b], the Examiner finds, and we agree
Applicant relies in his arguments on S2 Auth Request shown in
Zhang at Figure 3. Authentication & Pair-Keys Negotiation in
FWAI. Describing Figure 3 Zhang teaches: “A STA logs in
WEAN in i-th time with the token Token1STA=hN'I(S), and the
AS can verify it efficiently by computing h(Token1STA) and
compares it with the previous token Tokerf'STA cached in the
AS. If the token is valid, the AS authenticates the STA
successfully and records this token as the TVPK for the STA.”
(Zhang, page 3) (emphasis added).
5
Appeal 2017-003231
Application 14/494,844
Examiner considers ‘ ‘'information regarding the current
authentication status ” of Applicant to be equivalent the TVPK
token of Zhang, Further cached information of Applicant is the
same as TVPK1'1, and the current is the same as TVPK1.
And finally, contrary to Applicant assertion that Zhang
requires an authentication request (i.e., protocol flow or
conversation message S2) to be issued to and serviced by the
AS before the STA is provided access to the WLAN, Zhang
strongly teaches that: “Another highlight of the proposed
scheme is that it is possible to authenticate STAs in the AP
(caching TVPKs) to prevent illegal message from transferring
to the AS.”
Ans. 5 (emphasis added).
Thus, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1—3 and 5—17. Appellant has not further responded to these
explanations, because no Reply Brief was filed.
Section 103 rejection of claim 4 over Zhang and Morris
Appellant provided additional arguments with respect to the
patentability of claim 4 (Br. 15—16). We have considered these arguments
and find them unpersuasive. In addition, we note the Examiner has rebutted
these arguments in the Answer by a preponderance of the evidence (Ans. 6).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning and adopt
them as our own. Consequently, we conclude there is no reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejections of claim 4.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—17 are 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).
6
Appeal 2017-003231
Application 14/494,844
AFFIRMED
7