Ex Parte Denton

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 16, 2012

11324869 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GUY S. DENTON
____________

Appeal 2010-003473
Application 11/324,869
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003473
Application 11/324,869

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-5, 7-17, 19-33, and 35-40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to controlling access to a network. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:

obtaining information dynamically of assets residing on a
network by discovering the assets connected to the network,
populating an assets database, and performing ongoing
monitoring of the network to determine and reconcile
previously unknown assets;

comparing a device identifier to the dynamically obtained
information of assets at a time of a request to access the
network;

determining that the device identifier matches the
dynamically obtained information of assets;

determining that the assets comply with one or more
rules at the time of the request to access the network, wherein
access to the network is permitted only after the determining
steps; and

quarantining a device from the network or a portion
thereof based upon one or more of the determining steps.

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ross US 2006/0005254 A1 Jan. 5, 2006
(filed June 9, 2004)
Appeal 2010-003473
Application 11/324,869

3

REJECTION
Claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-33, and 35-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being unpatentable over Ross.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Ross discloses every limitation of
independent claim 1 including “performing ongoing monitoring of the
network to determine and reconcile previously unknown assets” (see Ans. 3-
5). Appellant contends that Ross’s authentication of devices does not
disclose the claimed monitoring to determine and reconcile previously
unknown assets (see App. Br. 8-10). We agree with Appellant.
Ross discloses authenticating a device for network access:
[A] device seeking authentication, e.g., for purposes of
obtaining a network access assignment, presents credentials to
an authenticator. In one embodiment if the device is
authenticated as having presented valid credentials, the access
assignment made by the authenticator may depend upon
whether the device is also compliant with a security policy.

. . .

In one embodiment authenticator 130, and/or
access policy server 131, and/or authentication server 140
may include a control mechanism over various access
assignments. For example, system 100 may be assigned a
particular access channel that is listed with authenticator 130
as only allowing access to a particular group, subnet, etc.

(Ross, ¶¶ 0013, 0017). The Examiner relies on the cited authentication and
access assignment process in Ross for disclosing the claimed “monitoring”
Appeal 2010-003473
Application 11/324,869

4
step (see Ans. 3-5, 10-13). However, we disagree with the Examiner and
find that authenticating a device that presents valid credentials is not
“monitoring . . . to determine and reconcile previously unknown assets.”
That is, “a system 100 that is authenticated cannot reasonably be considered
as an unknown asset, even before it is authenticated, since the Ross
methodology requires prior knowledge of the system 100 (e.g., via the
credentials) in order to authenticate the system” (Reply Br. 8).
Further, we find the relied upon portion of Ross does not disclose
taking any steps when a device is not authenticated that meet the limitation
“monitoring . . . to determine and reconcile previously unknown assets.”
Although a device not authenticated may be “unknown” (see Ans. 12), the
Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in Ross of “determin[ing] and
reconcil[ing]” such “unknown” devices (see Reply Br. 9). Therefore, the
Examiner has not shown that Ross discloses “performing ongoing
monitoring of the network to determine and reconcile previously unknown
assets” as recited in the language of independent claim 1.
We are therefore constrained by the record to find that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1, independent claims 14, 27, and 35 which recite
commensurate limitations, and claims 2-5, 7-13, 15-17, 19-26, 28-33, and
36-40 for similar reasons.

Appeal 2010-003473
Application 11/324,869

5

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-17, 19-33, and 35-40
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-17,
19-33, and 35-40.

REVERSED

tkl