Appeal 2006-3074
Application 10/035,464
Bluetooth is merely an example of a wireless system that can be used, and
that “any wireless LAN that fulfils [certain] . . . requirements may be used
by the invention.” Specifically, the terminals should be able to establish
(with a delay of at most a few seconds) a connection, which may carry
protocols involved in a session.
Appellants further contend (Br. 18-20) that Cory’s continuous
transmission of data differs from the claimed invention of transmitting a
bogus message in response to conditions sensed by a parameter regulator at
the host computer. Also, Appellants contend (Br. 20-22) that although
Munger discloses monitoring communication traffic and adding dummy data
to communications from a terminal based on the detected traffic, the
monitoring occurs at the terminal from which the dummy data is sent, not at
the host computer. Accordingly, Appellants contend (Br. 20) that any
combination of Nordenstam, Cory, and Munger fails to teach or suggest the
claimed parameter regulator at the host computer. Thus, the first issue is
whether monitoring a communication parameter at the store host computer
and sending dummy data from a terminal to the store host computer in
response to the measured parameter is taught or suggested by the
combination of Nordenstam, Cory, and Munger.
There is no dispute that Nordenstam discloses a store host computer, a
wireless network, and wireless terminals in a store in communication with
the store host computer. Further, Appellants have not argued the
obviousness of including traffic monitoring and dummy messages in the
system of Nordenstam to defeat traffic analysis. Munger teaches (Munger,
col. 4, ll. 35-42, and col. 10, ll. 14-21) adding decoy or dummy data to a
communication stream during low traffic periods to prevent traffic analyzers
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013