CA, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2021

2019006360 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 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.
14/454,150 08/07/2014 Kieron John James Connelly 7100-26200 4275
140181 7590 02/25/2021
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(CA TECHNOLOGIES)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2021 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):
bparkerson@shb.com
shbdocketing@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KIERON JOHN JAMES CONNELLY,
ANIVELLA VENKATA SATYA SAI NARSIMHA SUBRAHMANYA
SUDHAKAR, STEVEN M. ISENBERG, MIRIAN MINOMIZAKI SATO,
and DAOCHENG CHEN
____________

Appeal 2019-006360
Application 14/454,150
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, LARRY J. HUME, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3–14, and 16–23, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies CA, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006360
Application 14/454,150

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The disclosed and claimed invention relates to “identifying and
addressing unauthorized changes to network elements in a network
environment.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Methods of managing an information technology (IT)
infrastructure include detecting by a configuration management
system an unauthorized change to one of a plurality of network
elements, determining by the configuration management system
that the unauthorized change to the one of the plurality of
network elements creates a risk condition to an operation of one
of the services provided by the IT infrastructure, and initiating
an action to remedy the unauthorized change in response to
determining that the unauthorized change to the one of the
plurality of network elements creates the risk condition to the
operation of one of the services provided by the IT
infrastructure.
Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of managing an information technology (IT)
infrastructure comprising a plurality of interconnected network
elements that are configured to provide services to clients of the
IT infrastructure, a configuration management system that
manages elements of the IT infrastructure, and a service
management system that monitors operation of services
provided by the IT infrastructure, wherein the services are
provided by operation of application programs running on
application servers in the IT infrastructure, the method
comprising:
detecting by the configuration management system an
unauthorized change to a security policy configuration of one of
the plurality of network elements;
determining by the configuration management system
that the unauthorized change to the security policy
configuration of the one of the plurality of network elements
creates a risk condition to a security of operation of one of the
services provided by the IT infrastructure, wherein the one of
Appeal 2019-006360
Application 14/454,150

3
the services provided by the IT infrastructure is provided by an
application program operating on a server in the IT
infrastructure that is different from the one of the plurality of
network elements;
initiating by the configuration management system an
action to remedy the unauthorized change in response to
determining that the unauthorized change to the one of the
plurality of network elements creates the risk condition to the
security of the operation of one of the services provided by the
IT infrastructure;
determining by the configuration management system the
identity of the one of the services provided by the IT
infrastructure that utilizes the one of the plurality of network
elements; and
halting operation of the application program that provides
the identified one of the services in response to determining that
the unauthorized change to the one of the plurality of network
elements creates the risk condition to the security of the
operation of the one of the services.
Appeal 2019-006360
Application 14/454,150

4
References and Rejections2
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References
1, 3, 6, 17,
20–23
103 Lecheler (US 2009/0217382 A1, Aug. 27, 2009),
Jain (US 9,710,626 B2, July 18, 2017)
4, 19 103 Lecheler, Jain, Schroeder (US 2010/0304715 A1,
Dec. 2, 2010)
7–10, 12–
14
103 Lecheler, Jain, Haag (US 2014/0201732; July 17,
2014)
5, 18 103 Lecheler, Jain, Paltenghe (US 2011/0167011 A1,
July 7, 2011)
11 103 Lecheler, Jain, Sinha (US 2012/0117209 A1, May
10, 2012)
16 103 Lecheler, Jain, Brueckner (US 8,839,426 B1, Sept.
16, 2014)
ANALYSIS3
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Lecheler
teach “determining . . . the unauthorized change to the security policy
configuration of the one of the plurality of network elements creates a risk
condition to a security of operation of one of the services provided by the IT
infrastructure,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). See
Appeal Br. 10–12.
The Examiner finds Lecheler’s “[u]nauthorized change to the security
configuration file of the router . . . correspond[s] to [an] unauthorized change

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated
November 26, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated March 8, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); and (3) Examiner’s Answer dated May 21, 2019 (“Ans.”).
3 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments.
Appeal 2019-006360
Application 14/454,150

5
to the security policy configuration of the one of the plurality of network
elements.” Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner cites Lecheler’s
“baseline configuration file” for teaching the claimed “services provided by
the IT infrastructure” and finds “[p]aragraphs 0025-0026 teach when an
unauthorized change has been made to the field configuration file of the
router, the unauthorized change in the field configuration file will creates a
risk condition in operation of the baseline configuration file of the network
system.” Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 7.
We disagree. Lecheler describes baseline configuration files as “the
original security configurations or the authorized updated security
configurations for the routers 220a-c” and “[t]he baseline configuration files
for each of the routers 220a-c are archived to provide a back-up for the field
configuration files and a standard used to detect unauthorized changes to the
field configuration files.” Lecheler ¶ 23 (emphasis added).
Consistent with the above description, Lecheler describes
“perform[ing] comparison of a baseline configuration file to a corresponding
field configuration file” to determine whether changes are appropriate:
Application of the target-delta file as described above
assumes that the field configuration files of the routers 220a-c
match the baseline configuration files (e.g., the original state).
To confirm this is true, the intelligent delta tool 236 is
configured to compare data blocks of the baseline
configuration file with corresponding data blocks of the field
configuration file and generate a field-delta file that represents
functional differences therebetween. If the two configurations
are functionally equivalent, the change may proceed using the
target-delta file. If not, an unauthorized change has been made
to the field configuration file and an alarm condition is raised.
The field configuration file is then reviewed to determine the
unauthorized changes. The review may be performed manually.
Appeal 2019-006360
Application 14/454,150

6
In the second case noted above where an unauthorized
attacker has made changes, the intelligent delta tool 236
performs a comparison of a baseline configuration file to a
corresponding field configuration file. If changes are detected,
an alarm is raised that indicates the need for further
investigation. In order to detect unauthorized changes, the
configuration monitor 238 may direct the intelligent delta tool
236 to compare the original and field configurations files
periodically.
Lecheler ¶¶ 25–26 (emphases added).
Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that “Paragraphs 0025-0026 teach
when an unauthorized change has been made to the field configuration file
of the router, the unauthorized change in the field configuration file will
creates a risk condition in operation of the baseline configuration file of the
network system” (Ans. 5) is not supported by Lecheler. Indeed, such
unsupported finding would defeat the purpose of the baseline configuration
files, which are “archived to provide a back-up for the field configuration
files.” Lecheler ¶ 23.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent
claim 20 for similar reasons.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 3–14, 16–19, and 21–23. Although the Examiner cites additional
references for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown
the additional references overcome the deficiency discussed above in the
rejection of claim 1.

Appeal 2019-006360
Application 14/454,150

7
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–14, and 16–
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 6, 17,
20–23
103 Lecheler, Jain 1, 3, 6, 17, 20–
23
4, 19 103 Lecheler, Jain,
Schroeder
4, 19
7–10, 12–
14
103 Lecheler, Jain,
Haag
7–10, 12–14
5, 18 103 Lecheler, Jain,
Paltenghe
5, 18
11 103 Lecheler, Jain,
Sinha
11
16 103 Lecheler, Jain,
Brueckner
16
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–14, 16–23

REVERSED