`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and 1thcfllal'k Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR I’A'I'ILNI'S
`Pl). Hm. I450
`Aicxmidria. Virginia 2.! ?-l3- IJSD
`www.115plogm'
`
`AI‘I‘I.I('I’\'I‘I()N N0.
`|'II.IN(I DA I'Ii
`FIRST NAMIJ} INVILN I'OR
`A'I'I'ORNILY DOCKET NO.
`(TONI"I|{!\«'I.a\'l'l().?\= N0.
`
`121345.505
`[212912008
`Scott C. Harris
`WirelessCl
`7963
`
`__
`a
`.
`."-'
`
`"x “”“M‘”
`COLIN. CARL G
`
`__
`
`_
`
`433
`
`_ 3
`
`_
`
`_
`
`75le
`23344
`SCOTT C HARRIS
`P 0 BOX 927649
`SAN DIEGO, CA 92192
`
`IUDWEUUU
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
` 10129I'2W)
`
`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):
`scoll @ harrisc scum
`selluspto @ gmail .com
`
`PTO] I-IHIA (Rev. 04m?)
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 1
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Application No.
`
`ApplicantIs)
`
`12845565
`
`HARRIS. SCOTT C.
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Examiner
`
`CARL COLIN
`
`Art Unit
`
`2433 -
`
`— The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 3? CFR 1. 136(al.
`In no event however may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If No period for reply is specified above. the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX [6} MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for replyI will. by statute. cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication. even if timely filed. may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.7mm).
`
`Statu s
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 29 December 2008.
`2a)|:| This action is FINAL.
`2mg This action is non-final.
`
`3)I:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 CD. 11, 453 0.6. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`MIX Claim(s) fl isfare pending in the application.
`4a) Of the above claim(s)
`istare withdrawn from consideration.
`
`5)I:I CIaimIs)
`
`isfare allowed.
`
`(BIZ Claim(s)fl isfare rejected.
`
`7)[:I Claim(s)_ isIare objected to.
`
`8)I:I CIaimIs)_ are subject to restriction andlor election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`10). The drawing(s) filed on 29 December 2008 islare: mg accepted or b)I:| objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`11)I:I The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)I:I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)—(d) or (f).
`a)I:I All
`b)I:I Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.I:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) I] Notice of Draftsperson‘s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) E Information Disclosure Statementts) (PTOISBIOB)
`Paper No(s)lMai| Date 12I’29J2008.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark O‘I‘Iice
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`4) '3 Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper NOISIIMBII Date.
`5) I:I Notice of Informal Patent Application
`6) I] Other:
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper NoJMail Date 20091025
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 2
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 2
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Pursuant to USC 131, claims 1—21 are presented for examination.
`
`Priority
`
`2.
`
`Applicant’s claim for the benefit ofa prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C.
`
`l 19(e) or
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(e) is acknowledged.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`3.
`
`The information disclosure statement filed 12/29/2008 fails to comply with 37 CFR
`
`l.98(a)(l), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or
`
`other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) US. patents and US. patent
`
`application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the
`
`application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being
`
`submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each
`
`document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates
`
`that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has
`
`been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been
`
`considered.
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 3
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 3
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 3
`
`Double Parenting
`
`4.
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine
`
`grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or
`
`improper timcwisc extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible
`
`harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornwn. 686
`
`F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re VogeI, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA
`
`l970);and, In re Thorfngron, 418 F.2d 528, I63 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`
`A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to
`
`overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground
`
`provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this
`
`application. See 37 CFR l.l30(b).
`
`Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal
`
`disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37
`
`CFR 3.73(b).
`
`5.
`
`Claiml-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
`
`as being unpatcntablc over claims l-l4 of US. Patent No. 7,490,348. Although the conflicting
`
`claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
`
`6.
`
`C1aim(s) 1—14 of Patent/Application #7,490,348 eontain(s) every element of
`
`claim(s) 1 and 13 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the
`
`instant application. Claim(s ) 1-16 of the instant application therefore isfare not
`
`patently distinct from the earlier patent elaim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 4
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 4
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 4
`
`obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably
`
`distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
`
`“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later
`
`claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896,
`
`225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because
`
`the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140
`
`F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness
`
`type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a
`
`patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR
`
`LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON
`
`PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30,2001).
`
`“Claim 12 and Claim 13 are generic to the species of invention covered by
`
`claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the
`
`species of the patented invention. Cf, Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner,
`
`778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier
`
`species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim) 4 . This
`
`court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the
`
`species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van
`
`Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982).
`
`Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 12 and
`
`13 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double
`
`patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQZd 2010 (1231993)
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 5
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 5
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 5
`
`7.
`
`Claim 17 of the instant application is similar to claims 1 and 4 of the patented application
`
`except for specifying a resource such as voice over IP.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in possession of the claims of the patented application to implement the
`
`invention over any kinds of network resources since this would only require routine skill in the
`
`art as the patented application discloses using first access criteria for network access resources.
`
`Therefore, claims 17-21 are rejected under obviousncss—typc double patenting.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC' § 112
`
`8.
`
`The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and
`distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`1 12, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
`
`failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as
`
`the invention.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 1, 13, and 17 recite transmitting a first and second wireless network system. The
`
`word system as known in the art defines a number of connected hardware components.
`
`It
`
`appears that applicant meant to claim wireless communication or wireless service. Appropriate
`
`correction is requested.
`
`11.
`
`Claim 15 recites the limitation "said encrypted stream" on line 4 and “said unencrypted
`
`stream” on line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 6
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 6
`
`

`

`ApplieationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 6
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`12.
`
`The following is a quotation ofthc appropriate paragraphs of35 U.S.C. 102 that form the
`
`basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section
`122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for
`patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United
`States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international
`application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(3) shall have the effects for
`purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the
`international application designated the United States and was published under Article
`21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated
`
`by US Patent 6,970,927 to Stewart et a] (Applicant ’5 IDS).
`
`As per claim 1, Stewart et al discloses a wireless network transmitting system
`
`comprising (see column 9, lines 39-42), Stewart et al discloses the system has different access
`
`points that can provide different communication channels and separate communication traffic
`
`based on the network providers being used (see column 14, lines 19-39); a first level access
`
`providing access to local resources as well as access to the Internet that meets the recitation of a
`
`first networking device, transmitting a‘first wireiess network system from afirst location, (see
`
`column 16, lines 13-20) .saicifirst wireless network system requiring afirst access criteria in
`
`order to access saidfinst wireiess network system, and saidfirst wireless network system, when
`
`accessed using saidfirst access criteria, providing ajirst levei ofaccess to network resources
`
`(see column 16, lines 13-15 and column 16, line 48 through column 17, line 3), Stewart et al
`
`also discloses for instance one or more access points are comprised in an airport and one or more
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 7
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 7
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 7
`
`airlines may maintain various resources (see column 16, lines 21—25) and as noted above the
`
`system has different access points that can provide different communication channels and access
`
`level and separate communication traffic based on the network providers being used (see column
`
`14, lines 19-3 9) that meets the recitation of a second networking device, transmitting a second
`
`wireless network systenifi‘om an area adjacent saidfirst Iocation. Stewart et a] discloses a
`
`second access level allowing access to the Internet only and no access to local network resources
`
`on the network that meets the recitation of said second wireiess network system controiiing
`
`access without saidfirst access criteria, and providing a second level ofaccess to network
`
`resources in order to access said second wireless network system, wherein said second level of
`
`access to network resources provided by said second wireless network system is less access to
`
`network resources than. provided by saidfirst ievei ofaccess to network resources provided by
`
`saidfirst wireiess network system (see column l6, lines l5—20 and column l6, line 48 through
`
`column 17, line 3). Stewart et al also discloses said first communication part having its access
`
`controlled by requiring users of the first communication part to use a first secret key
`
`(identification information which indicates access level) saidfirst wireless network system, when
`
`accessed using saidfirst access criteria (see column 15, lines 40-46 and column 16, lines 42-55)
`
`said second wireiess network system controliing access without saidfirst access criteria
`
`(identification information) (see column 12, lines 39-46 and column 16, lines 42-55). See
`
`examples ofidentification information in (column 6, lines 18—30 and column 14, lines 55—59, and
`
`column 11, lines 3-33).
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 8
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 8
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 8
`
`As per claim 2, Stewart et al discloses different access points that can provide different
`
`communication channels and access level and separate communication traffic based on the
`
`network providers being used (see column 14, lines 19—39) that meets the recitation of wherein
`
`said.first and second networking devices are two separate devices which are physicaiiv in a
`
`same housing, and transmit over a same area. (See also fig.2).
`
`As per claim 4, Stewart et al discloses allowing access to specified level of access to
`
`services (i.e. restricted to use or ViCW private resources of the network) that meets the recitation
`
`of wherein saidfirst levei ofaccess to network resources provides a first total amount of data
`
`that can be transferred in a specified session, and said second ievei ofaccess to network
`
`resources provides a second totai amount ofdata that can be transferred in a specified session,
`
`wherein said second total amount is iess than saidfirst total amount (see column 16, lines 29—
`
`37).
`
`As per claim 5, Stewart et al discloses an access granting mechanism that detects user’s
`
`access level within an identification information (see column 16, lines 15-20 and column 16, line
`
`48 through column 17, line 3) that meets the recitation of wherein said access criteria is a digital
`
`key.
`
`As per claim 6, Stewart et al discloses a second access level allowing access to the
`
`lntemet only and no access to local network resources on the network that meets the recitation of
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 9
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 9
`
`

`

`ApplieationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 9
`
`wherein said second wireiess network system aiiows access only based on a second access
`
`criteria (see column 16, lines 15-20 and column 16, line 48 through column 17, line 3).
`
`As per claim 7, Stewart et al discloses access level dependent on identification
`
`information that meets the recitation of wherein said second access criteria is also a digital key
`
`that is different than thefirst digital key (see column 15, lines 40-48).
`
`As per claim 9, Stewart et al discloses wherein said access criteria iimits access such
`
`that oniy specific Internet pages which can be obtained (see column 16, lines 21-47).
`
`As per claim 10, Stewart et al discloses wherein said access is based on. a token. that
`
`allows am); a certain amount ofdata transfer (see column 16, lines 21-47).
`
`As per claim 12, Stewart et al discloses for instance, one or more access points are
`
`comprised in an airport and one or more airlines may maintain various resources (see column 16,
`
`lines 21-25) and the system has different access points that can provide different communication
`
`channels and access level and separate communication traffic based on the network providers
`
`being used (see column 14, lines 19-39) that meets the recitation of a third nemaorking device,
`
`transmitting a third wireless network systenifi'ont an area adjacent saidfirst location. Stewart
`
`et al discloses a third level access providing access only to specified internet sites or web pages
`
`and does not include access to private files on said system and this access does not require any
`
`key as it is provided to non-authorized users (see column 15, line 60 through column 16, line 3)
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 10
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 10
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 10
`
`that meets the recitation of wherein said third networking device operates without either of'said
`
`first or second access criteria and provides a third ievei Qfaccess to resources which is less
`
`access to resources than. either of'saidfirst or second ievei’s ofaccess.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § I03
`
`13.
`
`The following is a quotation of 3S U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or
`described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject
`matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived
`by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC. |03(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent
`
`6,970,927 to Stewart et al (Applicant ’5 IDS) in view of Examiner's Official Notice.
`
`As per claim 8, Stewart et al substantially discloses the identification information may
`
`be in form of digital certificate (see column 12, lines 4-14) (see column 6, lines 18-30 and
`
`column 14, lines 55-59). Examiner takes official notice that it is very well known in the art that
`
`a digital certificate may include encryption key (such as public key) to access information.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to modify the method of Stewart et alto use an encryption key as identification
`
`information so as to provide security for private information as well-known in the art (see
`
`column 12, lines 4-15 and column 16, lines 21-47).
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 11
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 11
`
`

`

`ApplieationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 11
`
`14.
`
`Claims 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`US Patent 6,970,927 to Stewart et a] (Applicant ’3; [DS) in View of Applicant’s Admitted
`
`Prior Art (AAPA).
`
`As per claim 13, Stewart et al substantially discloses a wireless network system,
`
`comprising: Stewart et a] discloses the system has different access points that can provide
`
`different communication channels and separate communication traffic based on the network
`
`providers being used (see column 14, lines 19-39) that meets the recitation of first portion. The
`
`access points also determine the appropriate access level and access method (see column 13,
`
`lines 17-27). Stewart et al discloses a first portion that provides network access and requires
`
`specific identification information for allowing access to resources only on the local network
`
`(see column 13, lines 18-27) that meets the recitation of : afirst nefivorking device, transmitting
`
`ajirst wireless network systemjroni a first location, saidfirst wireless network system sending
`
`and receiving
`
`information in order to access saidfirst wireless network system, and saidfirst
`
`wireless network system providing ajirst level ofaccess to network resources via said
`
`information;
`
`Stewart et al discloses a second portion which does not require the identification
`
`information to get access, and provides the lowest possible level of access to only external access
`
`such as the Internet (a subset of said specified network features) (see column 13, lines 34-44 and
`
`column 12, lines 28-33 and lines 42—46) that meets the recitation of .‘ a second networking
`
`device, transmitting a second wireless network systemjroni an area adfacent saidfirst location,
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 12
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 12
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 12
`
`said second wireiess network system not being encrypted, and providing a second ievei ofaccess
`
`to network resources in order to access said second wireiess network svstem, wherein said
`
`second ievei ofaccess to network resources provided by said second wireless network system
`
`provides less access to network resources than provided by saidfirst ievei of'access to network
`
`resources provided by saidfirst wireless network system. Stewart et al also discloses limited
`
`access may be only certain Intranet sites (see column 12, lines 28-38).
`
`Stewart does not explicitly disclose that the information may be encrypted or not
`
`encrypted for different level ofaccess. However, Applicant’s admitted prior art discloses it is
`
`very well-known in the art of wireless networks to use encryption so that security can be
`
`achieved. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ofordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to modify the method of Stewart et al to use an encryption as to provide
`
`secure communication to authorized users.
`
`As per claim 14, Stewart et al discloses different access points that can provide different
`
`communication channels and access level and separate communication traffic based on the
`
`network providers being used (see column 14, lines 19-39) that meets the recitation of wherein
`
`said _first and second networking devices are two separate devices which are pkysicalbz in a
`
`same housing, and transmit over a same area. (See also fig.2).
`
`As per claim 16, Stewart et al discloses for instance, one or more access points are
`
`comprised in an airport and one or more airlines may maintain various resources (see column 16,
`
`lines 21-25) and the system has different access points that can provide different communication
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 13
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 13
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 13
`
`channels and access level and separate communication traffic based on the network providers
`
`being used (see column 14, lines 19-39) that meets the recitation of a third networking device,
`
`transmitting a third wireless network systemfrom an area adjacent saidfirst location. Stewart
`
`et al discloses a third level access providing access only to specified intemet sites or web pages
`
`and does not include access to private files on said system and this access does not require any
`
`key as it is provided to non-authorized users (see column 15, line 60 through column 16, line 3)
`
`that meets the recitation of wherein said third nefivorking device operates without either ofsaid
`
`first or second access criteria andpro vides a third ievel of access to resources which is iess
`
`access to resources than either ofsaidfirst or second ieveis of‘access.
`
`15.
`
`Claims 3 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US
`
`Patent 6,970,927 to Stewart et al (Applicant ’3 iDS) in view of US Patent 7,215,638 to
`
`Roberts et a].
`
`As per claim 3, Stewart et 31 substantially discloses providing different level of access to
`
`network resources (see column 12, lines 28-46) including voice over IP (see column 16, lines 13-
`
`21). Stewart does not explicitly disclose restricting access to video over IP. Roberts et al in an
`
`analogous art discloses controlling access with voice over IP wherein in one level of access it
`
`may be authorized and in second level of access it is not. Also when the packets are encrypted or
`
`encapsulated they are allowed to pass thrOugh an IP tunnel, which otherwise may be restricted
`
`(see column 5, lines 1—39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ofordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Stewart et alto control access to
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 14
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 14
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 14
`
`video over IP service as suggested by Roberts et alto allow limited access when access is not
`
`otherwise authorized (sec column 1, lines 9-16) and as suggested by Stewart et a] (see column
`
`12, lines 28—46).
`
`As per claim 17, Stewart et al discloses a netWork transmitting system comprising (see
`
`column 9, lines 39-42), Stewart et al discloses the system has different access points that can
`
`provide different communication channels and separate communication traffic based on the
`
`network providers being used (see column 14, lines 19-39); a first level access providing access
`
`to local resources as well as access to the Internet that meets the recitation of a first neMortl—ing
`
`device, transmitting a.first wireless network systemjrom ajitst iocation, (see column 16, lines
`
`13-20) saidfirst wireless network system requiring afirst access criteria in order to access said
`
`first wireless network system, and saidfirst wireless network system, when accessed using said
`
`first access criteria, providing afirst level ofaccess to network resources (see column 16, lines
`
`13-15 and column 16, line 4'8 through column 17, line 3), and providing video over IP access
`
`which can be accessed using saidfirst access criteria (see column 16, lines 13-21). Stewart et
`
`al also discloses for instance one or more access points are comprised in an airport and one or
`
`more airlines may maintain various resources (see column 16, lines 21-25) and as noted above
`
`the system has different access points that can provide different communication channels and
`
`access level and separate communication traffic based on the network providers being used (see
`
`column 14, lines 19-3 9) that meets the recitation of a second networking device, transmitting a
`
`second wireless network system that is a separate networkfi'otn saidfinst wireless network
`
`system. Stewart et a1 discloses a second access level allowing access to the Internet only and no
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 15
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 15
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 15
`
`access to local network resources on the network that meets the recitation of said second wireless
`
`network system controlling access without saidfirst access criteria, and pro viding a second ievei
`
`ofoccess to network resources in order to access said second wireless network system, wherein
`
`said second levei ofaccess to network resources provided by said second wireless network
`
`system is fess access to network resources than provided by saidfirst level of access to network
`
`resources provided by saidjitst wireless network system (see column 16, lines 15-20 and column
`
`16, line 48 through column 17, line 3).
`
`Stewart does not CXplieitly disclose restricting access to video over IP. Roberts et al in
`
`an analogous art discloses controlling access with voice over IP wherein in one level of access it
`
`may be authorized and in second level of access it is not. Also when the packets are encrypted or
`
`encapsulated they are allowed to pass through an IP tunnel, which otherwise may be restricted
`
`(sec column 5, lines l—39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ofordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Stewart et alto control access to
`
`video over IP service as suggested by Roberts et alto allow limited access when access is not
`
`otherwise authorized (sec column 1, lines 9- l 6) and as suggested by Stewart et al (sec column
`
`12, lines 28-46).
`
`As per claim 18, Stewart et al discloses different access points that can provide different
`
`communication channels and access level and separate communication traffic based on the
`
`network providers being used (see column 14, lines 19-39) that meets the recitation of wherein
`
`saidfins‘t and second networking devices are two separate devices which transmit over a same
`
`area. (See also fig.2).
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 16
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 16
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 16
`
`As per claim 19, Stewart et al discloses access level dependent on identification
`
`information that meets the recitation of wherein .said second wireiess network system aflows
`
`access only based on a second access criteria, different than saidfiist access criteria (see
`
`column 15, lines 40—48).
`
`As per claim 20, Stewart et a] substantially discloses the identification information may
`
`be in form of digital certificate (sec column 12, lines 4-14) (see column 6, lines 18-30 and
`
`column 14, lines 55-59). Examiner takes official notice that it is very well known in the art that
`
`a digital certificate may include encryption key (such as public key) to access information.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to modify the method of Stewart et al to use an encryption key as identification
`
`information so as to provide security for private information as well-known in the art (see
`
`column 12, lines 4-15 and column 16, lines 21-47).
`
`As per claim 21, Stewart et al discloses for instance, one or more access points are
`
`comprised in an airport and one or more airlines may maintain various resources (see column 16,
`
`lines 21-25) and the system has different access points that can provide different communication
`
`channels and access level and separate communication traffic based on the network providers
`
`being used (see column 14, lines 19-39) that meets the recitation of a third networking device,
`
`transmitting a third wireless neMork systemfi'om an area adjacent saidfirst location. Stewart
`
`et al discloses a third level access providing access only to specified internet sites or web pages
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 17
`
`STARWOOD Ex 1002, page 17
`
`

`

`ApplicationfControl Number: 12/345,565
`Art Unit: 2433
`
`Page 17
`
`and does not include access to private files on said system and this access does not require any
`
`key as it is provided to non-authorized users (see column 15, line 60 through column 16, line 3)
`
`that meets the recitation of wherein said third ”envorking device operates without either ofsaio'
`
`first or second access criteria and provides a third ieve! ofaccess to resources which is less
`
`access to resources than either ofsaidfirst or second ieveis ofoccess.
`
`16.
`
`Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent
`
`6,970,927 to Stewart et al (Applicant's [DS) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
`
`(AAPA) in view of US Patent 7,215,638 to Roberts et al.
`
`As per claim 15, Stewart et al substantially discloses providing