Ex Parte Aguren

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12685471 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/685,471 0111112010 Jerry Aguren
56436 7590 09/28/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82259213 7491
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANGELA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2442
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte JERRY AGUREN
Appeal2014-007022
Application 12/685,471
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-15 and 17-22. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Claim 16 is cancelled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2014-007022
Application 12/685,471
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to a security manager collecting
cable subsystem physical layer data and assessing the physical layer data to
determine a present operational state, or security state, of cables and
transceivers of a cable subsystem (Spec. 3:31-35).
Independent claims 1, 12, and 14 are reproduced below and are
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A data processing device connectable to a
communication network and operable to:
receive, from a network device, data associated with at
least one physical layer characteristic of a cable communication
subsystem, the subsystem comprising a transmitter and/or
receiver that is coupled to at least one cable and into the
network device; and
responsive to the received data, initiate a security
procedure.
12. A tangible non-transitory computer readable medium
bearing computer program instrr1ctions to cause a processor to
use data associated with at least one physical layer
characteristic of a cable communication subsystem, the
subsystem comprising a transceiver and at least one cable and
the at least one physical layer characteristic selected from
transmitter power, transmitter current, and photodiode receiver
optical energy, to detect in real time a predetermined physical
layer security state of the subsystem, and initiate a
predetermined corresponding response.
14. A method of applying physical layer security in a
communication network comprising a transceiver coupled into
a host network device and to at least one cable to enable the
host network device to communicate with another network
device, the method comprising:
2
Appeal2014-007022
Application 12/685,471
receiving, from the host network device, and storing in a
memory data relating to a physical layer characteristic of the
transceiver; and
processing the data and automatically initiating a security
procedure if required based on results of the processing.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kanzawa (US 2002/0194507 Al;
pub. Dec. 19, 2002).
The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings ofKanzawa and Raza (US 2010/0211665 Al; filed Feb.
13, 2009).
The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Kanzawa, Raza, and Baek (US 2010/0131688 Al; filed
Nov. 9, 2009).
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings ofKanzawa and Kamano (US 2003/0196055 Al;
filed Apr. 30, 2003).
The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Kanzawa and Baek.
The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings ofKanzawa and Bizet (US 2003/0221195 Al; Pub. Nov. 7,
2003).
3
Appeal2014-007022
Application 12/685,471
ANALYSIS
Section 102 Rejections
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Kanzawa discloses
"a cable communication subsystem comprising a transmitter and/or receiver
that is coupled [to at least one cable and] into the network device, as recited
in claim 1" (App. Br. 7 (emphasis omitted)). Appellant argues Kanzawa
discloses control terminals connected by way of cable to respective
transmission devices, but "does not teach a transmission device coupled into
a corresponding control terminal, such as by a plug in mechanism" (App. Br.
8). Appellant also contends Kanzawa does not receive data from a network
device, rather, Kanzawa responds to a lack of data received from a control
terminal (App. Br. 8-9).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's finding as our own (Final
Act. 2, 4; Ans. 2-5). Particularly, we agree Kanzawa discloses "network
devices are coupled into each other as shown in figures 1 and 2" (Final Act.
2). Kanzawa shows transmission devices A, B, and Care connected to
cables and into other transmission devices 2, 3 (Figures 2, 3) via RS232
cables (Kanzawa i-fi-1 45, 46; Ans. 3).
We also agree with the Examiner's interpretation of the claim term
"into" as a coupling between transmission devices (Ans. 3--4). The claim
recites a "transmitter and/or receiver that is coupled ... into the network
device" thus, the claim allows either the transmitter or receiver to be coupled
to a cable or into a network device, which Kanzawa discloses. We also note
claim 1 does not recite the coupling is provided by a "plug in mechanism" as
argued by Appellant (App. Br. 8).
4
Appeal2014-007022
Application 12/685,471
Appellant further contends the Examiner made a new ground of
rejection by modifying the mapping between claim 1 and Kanzawa in the
Examiner's Answer (Reply Brief 2). In the Final Rejection and again in the
Examiner's Answer, the Examiner mapped Figure 3, CPU 130, and devices
A, B, and C as coupled together and sending and receiving failures between
devices A, B, and C on a communication network (Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2-
4). Thus, the Examiner's findings are the same as those in the Final Action
and Answer. Appellant had sufficient opportunity to respond to this
rejection, but did not do so in the Appeal Brief.
The Examiner further finds Kanzawa's paragraphs 57 and 67 teach
communicating failures to other devices over a network (Final Act. 3).
Thus, Kanzawa at a minimum discloses "data" as failure bits that are
associated with the device cable subsystem, are received from a network
device, as recited in claim 1. Appellant provides no additional arguments
for claims 5, 7-9, and 11, therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
dependent claims 5, 7, 8, and 11.
Claims 14-17
With respect to claims 14--1 7, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner's finding as our own (Ans. 5---6). Particularly, we agree Kanzawa
discloses a transceiver (Fig. 1, transmission devices A, B, C) coupled to at
least one cable (Fig 3, cable to control terminal 10) and a host network
device (Fig. 3, transmission device which has connection to "other
transmission devices" at port B). Appellant presents similar arguments as
those presented in claim 1. Thus for the same reasons as those above, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 14--17.
5
Appeal2014-007022
Application 12/685,471
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, we agree with the Examiner finding Kanzawa
discloses "receiving log-in attempts which are recorded and if a certain
number of login attempts are reached (corresponding to previously stored
data-the failed log-in attempts), a security measure will occur" (Ans. 6-7
(citing Kanzawa i-f 77)). The Examiner argues the "previous log-in attempts
and the total value of the counter will be all of the log-in attempts," both
previous and present (Ans. 7). We are unpersuaded by Appellant's
argument that Kanzawa's devices "do not respond to received and stored
data associated with at least one physical layer characteristic using both most
recently stored and previously stored physical layer characteristic data"
(App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted)). Kanzawa at a minimum discloses
responding to stored data that is associated with a cable characteristic
reflecting previously stored data relating to attempts including the most
recent or last login attempt (Ans. 7). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 9.
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, Appellant contends Kanzawa does not
disclose "a control terminal corresponding to a particular transmission
device accesses the RAM or ROM of the transmission device" (App. Br.
13). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as
our own (Ans.7; Final Act. 6). We agree Kanzawa discloses a "ROM and
RAM of the transmission device (see figure 2 and [0051], which stores the
data that is accessed by the control terminal that is connected to the
transmission devices (fig. 1 )" (Ans. 7). Therefore, Kanzawa describes the
6
Appeal2014-007022
Application 12/685,471
transmission device memory is accessible by a network device. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15.
Claims 18, 20, and 21
With respect to claims 18, 20, and 21, Appellant asserts "Kanzawa
teaches a transmission device at one end of the cable and a control terminal
at the other end of the cable" (App. Br. 14); "Kanzawa does not detect
disconnection at either end of a given cable" (id.); and "Kanzawa does not
specifically determine which end of a particular cable connection (e.g.,
between a control device and a corresponding transmission device) is
disconnected" (App. Br. 15).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's finding as our own (Ans.7-
9; Final Act. 7). Particularly, we agree Kanzawa shows data for transceivers
on both ends of the cable (transceivers A, B, or C), determining a fully
disengaged cable (Ans. 9), and a cable connected to a port on both devices A
and B, the status of each port communicated between the two and stored
therein to determine if the cable is disconnected (Kanzawa i-fi-153-54; Ans.
8). Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 18, 20, and 21.
Section 103 Rejections
Claims 2 and 3
Appellant contends the combination of Kanzawa in view of Raza is
based on hindsight and the rejection is improper as Kanzawa does not teach
monitoring the performance of the cable and the "hypothetical combination
of Kanzawa and Raza would not have led to the subject matter of claim 2"
(App. Br. 16).
The Examiner finds Kanzawa teaches storing, in a data processing
device, physical characteristic "data" that relates to transmitters and or
7
Appeal2014-007022
Application 12/685,471
receivers connected to one end of at least one cable (Final Act. 8). The
Examiner also finds it would have been obvious to use the physical layer
component information of Raza (i-f 137) transmitted and received (i-f 50) over
a network and stored in a network management system to determine the
performance capability of a channel (id.; Ans. 9-10). Appellant has
provided no reasoning why the Examiner's findings do not support a
conclusion of obviousness. Rather, Appellant concludes the combination is
improper without more (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); in re
lvierck& Co., inc.; 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed, Cir. 1986)), Thus~ we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Kanzawa in view of Raza.
Claim 4
Appellant contends claim 4 is not obvious over the combination of
Kanzawa, Raza, and Baek for the reasons presented in the response to the
rejection of claims 1-3 (App. Br. 18). We sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 4 for the same reasons we sustained the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-3.
Claims 6 and 10
Appellant contends claims 6 and 10 are not obvious over the
combination of Kanzawa and Kamano for the reasons presented in the
response to claim 1 (App. Br. 18). We sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 6 and 10 for the same reasons we sustained the Examiner's rejection
of claim 1.
Claim 19
Appellant contends Kamano' s fiber channel switch does not teach
physical characteristic data relating to an optical cable as the Examiner
8
Appeal2014-007022
Application 12/685,471
alleges (App. Br. 19). Appellant also asserts Kanzawa does not teach the
limitations of claim 14 from which claim 19 depends. Therefore, the
combination of Kamano and Kanzawa does not teach or suggest the
limitations of claim 19 (App. Br. 18-19).
We sustained the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 (see supra).
Further, Appellant's Specification states "any other cable end connector type
and appropriate corresponding cable type (including single mode optical
fiber cables and electrical communication cables), suitable for use in a
communication network, can be employed" (Spec. 6:31-34 (emphasis
added)). In light of this broad disclosure, we agree with the Examiner
Kamano' s optical transceiver having optical cabling could replace the cable
in Kanzawa and the system would operate in the same manner, i.e., detecting
a disconnected cable (Ans. 10). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 19.
Claims 12 and 13
Appellant contends the combination of Kanzawa and Baek does not
teach or suggest Appellant's claimed invention and even if the references
were to be modified as proposed by the Examiner, Kanzawa would be
inoperable for its intended purpose because "Baek fails to teach monitoring
transmitter power status after the transmitter is powered up. Thus, there is
no reason to modify Kanzawa's transmitting device to monitor its power
status after initial power up" (App. Br. 21-22).
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error and adopt the Examiner's
findings as our own (Final Act. 12-13; Ans. 12-13). The Examiner finds
Kanzawa teaches monitoring physical characteristics (cable disconnections),
however, it does not teach the specific manner of monitoring physical
9
Appeal2014-007022
Application 12/685,471
characteristics as claimed (Ans. 13). The Examiner relies on Baek for
reporting a physical characteristic such as transmitter power (id.). Thus,
Kanzawa can use the information from Baek to determine a connection and
login/logoff status of particular devices as taught by Kanzawa (id.). We
therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 12 and 13.
Claim 22
Appellant contends claim 22 is not obvious over the combination of
Kanzawa and Bizet for the same reasons presented in the response to claims
1 and 9 (App. Br. 23). We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 for
the same reasons we sustained the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 9.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 17-22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10