Appeal 2006-3074
Application 10/035,464
from detecting bursts of communication. Thus, it would have been obvious
to monitor communication traffic and send dummy data during low traffic
periods in Nordenstam to defeat traffic analysis.
However, as indicated by Appellants (Br. 20), Munger discloses
(Munger, col. 12, ll. 26-33, and also col. 10, ll. 14-21) that each terminal
sends dummy data when the terminal itself detects low traffic. Thus,
Munger teaches monitoring at each terminal, not at the host computer, and
sending the dummy data from any terminal at which low traffic is detected.
Independent claim 1, in contrast, recites monitoring at the host computer and
sending bogus messages from the terminals to the host computer.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that
monitoring from each terminal in a store requires each terminal to include
the equipment or software needed for monitoring, whereas monitoring from
the store host computer requires only a single piece of equipment or
software. Further, a single monitoring location (i.e., the store host) would
use fewer resources than monitoring from each terminal throughout the
store. Also, since the communication of interest to a traffic analyzer would
be all communications sent to, and thus received by, the store host, and not
the communication from any particular terminal, the more logical location
for the monitoring would be at the store host computer. In other words,
monitoring from the store host computer would have been a predictable
variation from monitoring from the individual terminals. Accordingly, it
would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to monitor received
communications at the store host computer, and to provide dummy messages
from the terminals to the store host computer during periods of low traffic.
See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013