Ex Parte Amit et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 3, 201511124833 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NETA AMIT, ERAN HAREL, ABRAHAM NATHAN, and NEVET BASKER ____________ Appeal 2012-008261 Application 11/124,833 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-008261 Application 11/124,833 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 21–39 which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 1. A method comprising: verifying, by a first-phase filter operating on a computer, an incoming request based on characteristics that comprise the incoming request conforming with a protocol that is supported by the first-phase filter and a length of the incoming request not exceeding an allowable maximum; and verifying, by a second-phase filter in response to the verifying by the first-phase filter, the incoming request based on at least one additional characteristic of the incoming request that is particular to the supported protocol. Prior Art Ecclesine US 5,983,275 Nov. 9, 1999 Naudus US 6,202,081 B1 Mar. 13, 2001 Baize US 6,317,838 B1 Nov. 13, 2001 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 21, 22, 25–29, 32–35, 38, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baize and Ecclesine. Claims 23, 24, 30, 31, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baize, Ecclesine, and Naudus. Appeal 2012-008261 Application 11/124,833 3 ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. The Examiner finds determining whether IP address filtering rules are satisfied as taught by Baize teaches “verifying . . . an incoming request based on characteristics that comprise the incoming request conforming with a protocol that is supported by the first phase filter” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4–5, 9–11. Appellants contend the IP address filtering rules of Baize do not teach verifying that a request conforms to a supported protocol. Reply Br. 8–10. We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner. See Ans. 9–11. Appellants have not persuasively explained how the IP address filtering rules of Baize could be satisfied when characteristics of the incoming request, such as the address, do not conform with the Internet protocol supported by the filter of Baize. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 21–39 which fall with claim 1. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 21, 22, 25–29, 32–35, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baize and Ecclesine is affirmed. The rejection of claims 23, 24, 30, 31, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baize, Ecclesine, and Naudus is affirmed. Appeal 2012-008261 Application 11/124,833 4 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation