Ex Parte Cabrera et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2018

14186801 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/186,801
64446 7590
Philip McKay
Hawley Troxell
P.O. Box 1617
FILING DATE
02/21/2014
04/16/2018
Boise, ID 83701-1617
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Luis Felipe Cabrera
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.
INTU148219 7660
EXAMINER
DE JESUS LASSALA, CARLOS MANUEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/16/2018 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):
seanlewis.esq@gmail.com
ryoung@hawleytroxell.com
aholme@hawleytroxell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUIS FELIPE CABRERA and M. SHANNON LIETZ 1
Appeal2017-010320
Application 14/186,801
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 6 and 13 through 18.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a virtual asset testing environment where
templates are used to create virtual assets. Spec., Abstract. The created
assets are tested to identify any vulnerabilities and if any are discovered a
remedy is applied to the template that is used to create and deploy assets into
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intuit Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010320
Application 14/186,801
the production environment. Id. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
is reproduced below:
1. A system for providing a robust and efficient virtual
asset vulnerability management and verification service
compnsmg:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory unit coupled to the at least one
processor, the at least one memory unit having stored therein
instructions which when executed by any set of the one or more
processors, perform a process for providing a robust and efficient
virtual asset vulnerability management and verification service,
the process for providing a robust and efficient virtual asset
vulnerability management and verification service including:
providing a production computing environment in which
one or more virtual assets are to be deployed;
providing a virtual asset testing environment, the virtual
asset testing environment being a computing environment
distinct from the production computing environment;
designating a class of virtual assets to be vulnerability
tested and verified;
identifying a virtual asset creation template associated
with the class of virtual assets, each virtual asset of the class of
virtual assets being created using the virtual asset creation
template;
generating, using the virtual asset creation template, a
designated test virtual asset;
deploying the designated test virtual asset in the virtual
asset testing environment;
analyzing the designated test virtual asset to identify one
or more vulnerabilities in the designated test virtual asset;
for at least one vulnerability identified in the designated
test virtual asset, applying a remedy directly to the virtual asset
creation template to transform the virtual asset creation template
to a verified virtual asset creation template; and
using the verified virtual asset creation template to create
a plurality of virtual assets of the virtual asset class to be
deployed in the production environment.
2
Appeal2017-010320
Application 14/186,801
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6 and 13 through 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jaeger (US
2013/0304693 Al, published Nov. 14, 2013) and Sobel (US 7,437,764 Bl,
issued Oct. 14, 2008). Final Act. 3-11. 2
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, on pages 10 through 15 of the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 is in error. The
dispositive issue presented by these arguments is: whether the Examiner
erred in finding the combination of Jaeger and Sobel teaches generating a
virtual asset via a virtual asset creation template, testing the virtual asset to
identify one or more vulnerabilities in the test asset, applying a remedy to
the virtual asset creation template if a vulnerability is identified in the test
virtual asset, and using the virtual asset creation template to create virtual
assets to deploy in accordance with claims 1 and 13.
Appellants' arguments persuade us of error. The Examiner finds that
Jaeger teaches creating virtual assets based upon templates, and performing
deployment/functional testing of the virtual assets prior to deployment.
Answer 3--4 (equating Jaeger's "templates" with the claimed "virtual asset
creation templates" and Jaeger's "virtual software appliances" with the
claimed "virtual assets"); Final Act. 3-5. We concur with the Examiner's
findings. Further, the Examiner finds that Jaeger does not teach the claimed
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed July 20, 2016
("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer, mailed December 29, 2016
("Answer"), and the Final Office Action, mailed January 22, 2016 ("Final
Act").
3
Appeal2017-010320
Application 14/186,801
feature of determining a vulnerability in the test asset and applying a remedy
to the template.
The Examiner relies upon Sobel to teach this feature. App. Br. 4;
Final Act. 5---6. Specifically, the Examiner maps Sobel's "image" to the
claimed "virtual asset creation templates" and Sobel' s "virtual machine or
system" to the claimed "virtual asset" and finds that Sobel teaches
vulnerability assessment and that when a vulnerability is detected a repair is
patched in the image (template). Appellants have not contested this
mapping of the claim to the teachings of Sobel. We concur with the
Examiner that Sobel teaches a vulnerability assessment and that the image
(which the Examiner equates to the template) is patched if a vulnerability is
detected. See Sobel, col. 4, 11. 39-44. Appellants argue that the scanning for
a vulnerability in Sobel is of the image and thus does not meet the claim 1
and claim 13 limitation directed to performing the vulnerability assessment
on the virtual product. App. Br. 11-12. We concur with Appellants. Sobel
teaches that the vulnerability assessment of the system is performed by
accessing images or other repositories of backup data (which the Examiner
equates to the claimed template) and not of the virtual machine itself (which
the Examiner equates to the virtual asset). See Sobel, col. 3, 11. 48---66, col.
4, 11. 9-15, 63---67. Thus, we do not find that the Examiner has demonstrated
the combination of Jaeger and Sobel teaches the limitations of independent
claims 1 or 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 13, and dependent claims 2 through 6 and 14 through
18.
4
Appeal2017-010320
Application 14/186,801
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 6 and 13
through 18 is reversed.
We note that the Examiner has held in abeyance an obviousness-type
double-patenting rejection over the claims of patent application 14/192,529
(now us Patent 9,298,927). Final Act. 2. The Examiner is encouraged to
readdress this issue.
REVERSED
5