Ex Parte DentonDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 16, 201211324869 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation