MARE TRANQUILLITATIS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2021

2020003632 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2021)

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.
14/981,836 12/28/2015 Robert W. Twitchell JR. 1311.009 8585
36790 7590 08/31/2021
TILLMAN WRIGHT, PLLC
PO BOX 49309
CHARLOTTE, NC 28277-0076
EXAMINER
SONG, REBECCA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2021 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT W. TWITCHELL JR. and
DELIA J. SMITH
____________

Appeal 2020-003632
Application 14/981,836
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 50–57, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Code-X, Inc. Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003632
Application 14/981,836

2
II. DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Specification generally “relates to security in network
communications.” Spec. ¶ 4.
The Specification explains that “[d]igital watermarks are used to
enable an individual to add hidden copyright notices or other verification
messages to digital audio, video, image signals and documents,” which
“add[s] a measure of security to the authenticity of the work without the end
user’s knowledge or with minimal impact.” Spec. ¶ 5. Digital
watermarking includes “RF watermarking,” which “prevent[s]
impersonation attacks by modifying the hardware such that the modification
can be verified by a node before communication is established.” Id. ¶ 6.
The Specification also explains that “[n]etwork security on MANet and ad-
hoc networks is subject to attacks that can compromise the integrity of the
system.” Id. ¶ 8.
Therefore, the invention endeavors to “utiliz[e] a network watermark
process” in a “communications network,” including “storing [a] verifiable
communication path in a database for later reference.” Spec. ¶¶ 11, 13.
Independent claims 50 and 56, reproduced below, are representative
of the claimed subject matter:
50. A network authentication apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to:
receive a connection-request of a first entity, the
connection-request initiating a connection that traverses a
chain of entities of a network that end at a second entity of
the network; and
authenticate, at one entity of the entities, the
connection-request based on an entity-pattern representing
the chain of entities,
Appeal 2020-003632
Application 14/981,836

3
wherein the chain of entities includes at least two entities.
56. A method for network authentication comprising:
transmitting a connection-request from a first entity, the
connection-request initiating a connection that traverses a chain of
entities in a network that end at a second entity; and
authenticating the connection-request at an entity in the
network based on an entity-pattern representing the chain of
entities,
wherein the chain of entities includes at least two entities.
III. REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Name Reference Date
Chari et al. (“Chari”) US 6,704,301 B2 Mar. 9, 2004
He et al. (“He”) US 2014/0109202 A1 Apr. 17, 2014
IV. REJECTIONS
Claims 50, 55, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite. Final Act. 2.
Claims 50–57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as not enabled
by the written description. Final Act. 7.
Claims 50–57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over He and Chari. Final Act. 9.
V. OPINION
Section 112(b) Rejection
Claim 50
Appeal 2020-003632
Application 14/981,836

4
The Examiner finds that the recitation in claim 50 “that the
authentication occurs at one entity of the chain of entities” is “not clear who
does the authentication.” Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 7. According to the
Examiner, the claimed “one entity” is “not [the] same as the network
authentication apparatus” claimed. Id.
To support an indefiniteness rejection, the Examiner must show that,
when the claim is “read in light of the specification, it does not reasonably
apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention.” Amgen Inc. v.
Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “As
the statutory language of ‘particular[ity]’ and ‘distinct[ness]’ indicates,
claims are required to be cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague,
indefinite—terms. It is the claims that notify the public of what is within the
protections of the patent, and what is not.” In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307,
1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Here, the record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion because,
as argued by Appellant, “the claim clearly specifies that the authentication
occurs at the ‘one entity of the entities.’” Appeal Br. 23.
Claim 50 recites “the connection-request initiating a connection that
traverses a chain of entities of a network that end at a second entity of the
network” and “authenticate, at one entity of the entities, the connection-
request.” The claim language defines “who does the authentication” as “one
entity of the entities.”
Furthermore, the Specification discloses that “communication may be
initiated by a destination node in the form of . . . an information request
communicated from node X3 to gateway G via the intermediate nodes
X1,X2.” Spec. ¶ 274. Then, “[u]pon receipt of the information request,
Appeal 2020-003632
Application 14/981,836

5
including the network watermark, at the gateway G, the network watermark
is validated by a validation module of gateway G.” Id. ¶ 275. The claimed
authenticating “at one entity of the entities,” in light of the Specification,
includes an entity that receives the request with pathway information
appended (i.e., gateway G) validating the request.
Based on the foregoing discussion, we agree that those skilled in the
art would understand the scope of claim 50 when reading the claimed “one
entity of the entities” in light of the Specification. Therefore, we do not
sustain the indefiniteness rejection under § 112(b) of claim 50.
Claims 55 and 57
The Examiner concludes that claim 55 is “vague and indefinite”
because it depends on “claim 5 which does not exist.” Final Act. 2. The
Examiner also finds that claim 57 is “vague and indefinite” because it
depends on “claim 14 which does not exist.” Id. at 3.
Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings. Pending claim
55 depends on canceled “claim 5,” and pending claim 57 depends on
canceled claim 14. See Appeal Br. 33. Therefore, we summarily affirm the
indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 55 and 57.2

2 Where a claim is so indefinite that “considerable speculation as to meaning
of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of such claims” is
needed, it would be imprudent for us to pass judgment on certain other
rejections. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962). With regard
to claims 55 and 57, we are unable to determine the scope of the claims due
to their continued dependencies on canceled claims. Therefore, for claims
55 and 57, we are unable to determine whether the Examiner’s enablement
or obviousness rejections are proper because discerning the proper scope of
the claims requires undue and improper speculation. We therefore do not
reach decisions for the enablement and obviousness rejections of claims 55
and 57.
Appeal 2020-003632
Application 14/981,836

6
Section 112(a) Rejection
The Examiner finds that claim 56 fails to comply with the enablement
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the Specification “only compares
address of the node and address of packet and using list of ID in the request
to forward to another node on the list,” but not “a method and system for
allowing a source to access the node which the source is authenticated with.”
Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds that the claim “is not
clear who does the authentication, the network authentication apparatus or
one entity.” Ans. 4.
To support an enablement rejection, the Examiner must show that
undue experimentation would have been required to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (listing the
factual findings required to show undue experimentation and lack of
enablement).
Here, the Examiner’s finding is not sufficiently supported by the
record because, as argued by Appellant, the Examiner’s reasoning is not
“focused on the appropriate test for enablement,” and does not “support an
allegation that the claim is not enabled.” Appeal Br. 14; see also id. at 17,
20; Reply Br. 5–7. In addition, Appellant correctly argues that the “claim
does not recite ‘allowing a source to access the node which the source is
authenticated with’” as found by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 16. Further, as
noted by Appellant, the Specification explains a formed “network watermark
is ‘an entity-pattern representing the chain of entities.’” Id. at 18 (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 274–275).
Contrary to the Examiner’s characterization of the claim as “allowing
a source to access the node which the source is authenticated with,” the
Appeal 2020-003632
Application 14/981,836

7
claim recites “a connection-request from a first entity, the connection-
request initiating a connection that traverses a chain of entities in a network
that end at a second entity [of the network]” and “authenticating the
connection-request . . . based on an entity-pattern representing the chain of
entities.”
The Specification discloses that “communication may be initiated by a
destination node in the form of . . . an information request communicated
from node X3 to gateway G via the intermediate nodes X1,X2.” Spec. ¶ 274.
As part of the communication, “pathway information is preferably appended
by node X3,” and then “similarly appended by each intermediate node X1,X2,
such that a network watermark is formed.” Id. (emphasis added). Then,
“[u]pon receipt of the information request, including the network watermark,
at the gateway G, the network watermark is validated.” Id. ¶ 275.
The claim, in light of the Specification, requires a request (i.e.,
“connection-request”) with pathway information for the connection (i.e.,
“entity-pattern representing the chain of entities”) appended by the nodes
traversed by the connection (i.e., the chain of entities traversed through the
initiated connection), and then validating the request (i.e., “authenticating
the connection-request”).
The Examiner does not address the amount of experimentation that
would have been undue in implementing the disclosed authenticating of a
connection-request based on the pathway information (entity-pattern
representing the chain of entities traversed by the connection). See Wands,
858 F.2d at 737. Based on the foregoing discussion, the Examiner has failed
to show a lack of enablement of claim 56. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Appeal 2020-003632
Application 14/981,836

8
Examiner’s enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of claim 56, or of
claims 50–54, not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 20–22.
Section 103 Rejection
Claim 56 recites (emphasis added) “transmitting a connection-request
from a first entity, the connection-request initiating a connection that
traverses a chain of entities in a network that end at a second entity [of the
network]” and “authenticating the connection-request . . . based on an entity-
pattern representing the chain of entities.”
The Examiner finds that He teaches receiving a connection-request of
a first entity, and authenticating it. Final Act. 9 (citing He ¶¶ 8, 32, 40, 197);
see id. at 11. The Examiner relies on Chari’s client sending an initiation
request that contains the current connection route to teach the connection-
request initiating a connection that traverses a chain of entities upon which
authentication is based, as claimed. Final Act. 10 (citing Chari, Fig. 3B, col.
7, ll. 29–47); see also id. at 11; Ans. 8 (citing Chari, Fig. 3B, col. 2, ll. 48–
59, col. 15, ll. 12–17, 48–59, col. 18, ll. 30–34).
Appellant argues that both He and Chari fail to teach “authenticating a
connection request ‘based on an entity-pattern representing [a] chain of
entities’ traversed by a connection initiated by the connection request.”
Appeal Br. 26. Specifically, Appellant argues that,
even assuming arguendo that the cited portion of Chari can be
characterized as disclosing or suggesting use of an initiation
request that comprises an entity pattern representing a chain of
entities, nothing in Chari discloses or suggests authenticating
such an initiation request based on an entity pattern representing
a chain of entities.
Id. at 27; see also Reply Br. 15. According to Appellant, Chari’s disclosure
that servers perform client authentication and that the server stores the client
Appeal 2020-003632
Application 14/981,836

9
tree “does not amount to disclosure that the ‘client authentication’ function
is based on such a ‘client tree.’” Reply Br. 15.
Chari discloses the following:
When a Client wishes to initiate communication with the Server,
to establish an http connection or the like, it accesses its
temporary memory for the current route to the Server,” [which]
might read . . . F->G>H->S, where F labels the Client seeking to
initiate communication with the Server S.
Client F sends an Initiation Request (IR) to Client G. For
one embodiment, the IR is a data packet that contains the path
(F->G->H->S) in addition to a request addressed to the Server S
to initiate a connection. Client G uses the path information
contained in the IR to figure out whom to forward this packet to.
Chari, col. 7, ll. 29–41. Chari also discloses that “each server in this
architecture performs one or more of the following functions: client
authentication,” which “is the process whereby a Server verifies the identity
and access privileges of a new Client that joins its Cluster.” Id. at col. 18, ll.
29–37.
We conclude that, as correctly argued by Appellant, although Chari
teaches a connection-request (i.e., “Initiation Request (IR)”) that initiates a
connection traversing a chain of entities (i.e., “the IR is a data packet that
contains the path (F->G->H->S)”), and Chari generally teaches client
authentication, Chari does not teach “authenticat[ing] . . . the connection-
request based on an entity-pattern representing the chain of entities” as
claimed. In particular, Chari teaches the claimed “entity-pattern
representing the chain of entities” but does not associate this entity-pattern
with authentication. Consequently, Chari does not teach authenticating
based on the entity-pattern representing the chain of entities.
Appeal 2020-003632
Application 14/981,836

10
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 56, or of claims 50–54, not separately
argued. See Appeal Br. 28–29.
VI. CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 50 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 55 and 57 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 50–54 and 56
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 50–54 and 56
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
50, 55, 57 112 Indefiniteness 55, 57 50
50–57 112 Enablement3 50–54,
56
50–57 103 He, Chari4 50–54,
56

3 As explained above, we do not reach decisions for the enablement
rejections of claims 55 and 57 because we are unable to determine the scope
of the claims due to their continued dependencies on canceled claims, and
discerning the proper scope of the claims requires undue and improper
speculation. See Steele, 305 F.2d at 862.
4 As explained above, we do not reach decisions for the obviousness
rejections of claims 55 and 57 because we are unable to determine the scope
of the claims due to their continued dependencies on canceled claims, and
discerning the proper scope of the claims requires undue and improper
speculation. See Steele, 305 F.2d at 862.
Appeal 2020-003632
Application 14/981,836

11
Overall
Outcome
55, 57 50–54,
56
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART