ADP, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

14882819 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2020)

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.
14/882,819 10/14/2015 Jigesh Saheba ES2014057-2 5133
126105 7590 10/02/2020
Duke W. Yee
Yee & Associates, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIGESH SAHEBA, ROBERTO A. MASIERO,
and ISABEL ESPINA CARVAJAL
Appeal 2019-0042521
Application 14/882,819
Technology Center 2400

Before: MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER L MCKEOWN, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s Final decision to reject claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a gateway within a web services system.
Spec. ¶ 2. More specifically, the claims “relate[] to a method and apparatus

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Automatic Data Processing, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004252
Application 14/882,819

2
for facilitating communication between the client and the proxy server using
a gateway.” Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for facilitating communication between a client and a
proxy server, the method comprising:
receiving, at a gateway, a message from a client, wherein
the message includes a uniform resource identifier that
references an interface associated with a resource;
transforming, by the gateway, the uniform resource
identifier in the message received from the client into a context
resource identifier that also references the interface;
performing, by the gateway, an initial authorization check
including:
performing for an authorization check for the client with
respect to the interface; and
performing for an authorization check for a user of the
client with respect to the interface;
inserting, by the gateway, the context resource identifier
into the message received from the client to form a modified
message in response to a successful initial authorization check;
and
sending, by the gateway, the modified message to the
proxy server.

Appeal 2019-004252
Application 14/882,819

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Webb US 2002/0083342 A1 June 27, 2002
Cobb US 2007/0288253 A1 Dec. 13, 2007
Maffione US 2008/0276304 A1 Nov. 6, 2008
Fresko US 2010/0223471 A1 Sept. 2, 2010
Bonner US 8,064,906 B1 Nov. 22, 2011
Aziz US 2011/0314546 Dec. 22, 2011
Wheeldon US 2013/0346472 A1 Dec. 26, 2013
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 11, 18, 19, and 21 as unpatentable
over Webb and Islam. Final Act. 8–13.
The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 12 as unpatentable over Webb,
Islam, and Cobb. Final Act. 13–18.
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 as unpatentable over
Webb, Islam, Cobb, and Fresko. Final Act. 18–20.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 as unpatentable over Webb, Islam,
Cobb, and Bonner. Final Act. 20–21.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 15, and 20 as unpatentable over Webb,
Islam, Wheeldon. Final Act. 21–23.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 16 as unpatentable over Webb,
Islam, and Aziz. Final Act. 23–25.
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 9, and 17 as unpatentable over Webb,
Islam, and Malfone. Final Act. 25–26.
The Examiner rejects claim 10 as unpatentable over Webb, Islam,
Malfone, and Aziz. Final Act. 26–28.
Appeal 2019-004252
Application 14/882,819

4
OPINION
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON WEBB AND ISLAM
Claims 1, 11, 18, 19, and 21
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Webb and Islam.
Appellant argues that Webb in view of Islam fails to teach or suggest
transforming, by the gateway, the uniform resource identifier in the message
received from the client into a context resource identifier that also references
the interface. Appeal Br. 7–10. Appellant maintains that while Webb’s
gateway replaces network addresses within a Web page, that is then
provided to the client, “Webb never changes the gateway URL/gateway port
address in the access request received from the client.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant further contends that Webb redirects the client request message
“without any transformation of the IP address/URL indicated in the request.”
Reply Br. 3. According to Appellant, Webb’s “gateway uses the gateway
port indicated in the client request to ‘redirect’ the request according to the
indicated port number. This port forwarding occurs without any
transformation of the IP address/URL indicated in the request.” Reply Br.
3–4.
We disagree. Webb generally relates to a system that allows a client
on a public network to access devices on a private network. Webb ¶¶ 41–42,
Abstract. In Webb, a gateway has an IP address valid on the private and
public network. Webb ¶ 44. The gateway scans a range of private network
addresses to identify Web servers of the devices and then maps each
identified device Web server to a respective port. Webb ¶ 45. Webb stores
Appeal 2019-004252
Application 14/882,819

5
the corresponding port and web address for the device Web server in a
routing list, for example as depicted in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 of Webb Depicting an Exemplary Routing List
Webb further explains
An address and open port of a Web server for each device
connected to the private network 16 of FIG. 1 is mapped to a
respective, different gateway port. For example, the Web server
for the security system 20 (FIG. 1) has an IP address of
192.168.0.5 and is listening at port 80. As illustrated in FIG. 2,
this Web server address (i.e., 192.168.0.5:80) is mapped to port
1002 of the gateway 14 (FIG. 1). Thus, as will be described
below, a client request directed to the Web server of the security
system 20 (FIG. 1) will be addressed to port 1002 of the gateway
14 (FIG. 1) using the IP address of the gateway 14 (i.e., the IP
address that is valid on the public network 12).
Webb ¶ 45 (emphasis added). In other words, Webb teaches that a client,
connected to a public network, requests a device Web server, connected to
the private network, using the publicly available gateway IP address and the
port corresponding to the device Web Server. Id. Webb’s gateway then
redirects the request to the respective device Web server using the routing
list. Id. ¶¶ 51, 45.
Appeal 2019-004252
Application 14/882,819

6
As the examiner points out, a skilled artisan understands that in
redirecting the request, the gateway transforms the gateway address (i.e.
uniform resource identifier) and corresponding port to the device Web server
address (i.e. context resource identifier) using the routing list. Ans. 24. The
Specification similarly describes, in an exemplary embodiment, that the
gateway transforms the uniform resource identifier to the context resource
identifier by using an identifier data structure, which “may take the form of a
table, a spreadsheet, a database, a word document, a cache, a data store, or
some other type of data structure.” Spec. ¶ 60. While Appellant generally
asserts that no transformation is performed, Appellant fails to persuasively
explain how the gateway’s redirection fails to satisfy the transforming step.
As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner determining that Webb
teaches the transforming limitation.
Appellant next argues that Webb and Islam fail to teach the recited
inserting, by the gateway, the context resource identifier into the message
received from the client to form a modified message in response to a
successful initial authorization check. Appeal Br. 10–13. According to
Appellant, Islam’s trust broker performs an authentication but does not insert
any context resource identifier. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner, however,
points out that Islam’s trust broker transmits the session information, i.e.
context resource identifier, to the server system, i.e. proxy server, that
provides the requested applications and resources. Ans. 29 (citing Islam
¶ 7).
We agree with the Examiner. Islam relates to systems for providing
secure access with network resources. Islam, Abstract. In particular, Islam
teaches that a trust broker receives a request from a user and determines
Appeal 2019-004252
Application 14/882,819

7
what applications and resources the user is authorized to access. Islam ¶ 7.
If the user is authorized to access the requested applications and resources,
the trust broker establishes a connection with the user agent and transmits
session information, i.e. context resource identifier, to the server system that
provides the applications and resources. Id. As such, we are not persuaded
of error.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 11, 18, 19, and 21 as unpatentable over Webb and Islam.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 2–10, 12–17, and 20
As discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 11, and 21. Appellant does not present separate
arguments of patentability for dependent claims 2–10, 12–17, and 20. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 14–16. As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the remaining claims as unpatentable over the cited
combinations of prior art.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–21 are affirmed.
CONCLUSION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 11, 18,
19, 21
103 Webb, Islam 1, 11, 18,
19, 21

2, 12 103 Webb, Islam, Cobb 2, 12
Appeal 2019-004252
Application 14/882,819

8
3, 4, 13, 14 103 Webb, Islam,
Fresko
3, 4, 13, 14
5 103 Webb, Islam,
Cobb, Bonner
5
6, 15, 20 103 Webb, Islam,
Wheeldon
6, 15, 20
7, 16 103 Webb, Islam, Aziz 7, 16
8, 9, 17 103 Webb, Islam,
Malfone
8, 9, 17
10 103 Webb, Islam,
Malfone, Aziz
10
Overall
Outcome
1–21

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