Ex Parte Edwards et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2013

11069484 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/069,484 03/01/2005 Anthony Van Vechten Edwards 9191-3 3911
20792 7590 09/03/2013
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
WRIGHT, BRYAN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANTHONY VAN VECHTEN EDWARDS,
JAMES TALMAGE DOBLE, and STEVEN HARRY ROBERTS
____________

Appeal 2011-004531
Application 11/069,4841
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. EVANS, and PETER P. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving Appellants’
claims to methods, devices, systems and computer program products for
providing secure communications between managed devices in firewall
protected areas and networks segregated from the firewall protected areas.
The Examiner has rejected all pending claims 1-49 as being anticipated. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is Tavve Software Co.
Appeal 2011-004531
Application 11/069,484

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer
to the Appeal Brief (filed May 10, 2010), the Reply Brief (filed October 27,
2010) and the Answer (mailed August 27, 2010). We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention generally relates to computer network
management and security, and in particular, to providing secure
communications between managed devices in a firewall protected area
known as a demilitarized zone, or DMZ, and a network management station
in a private network segregated from the DMZ or firewall protected area.
See generally Abstract; Spec. ¶ 11. All of the pending claims, 1-49, are on
appeal. Claims 1, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 29, 31, 35, 44, and 46 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative:

1. A method for providing secure communications between managed
devices in a firewall protected area defined by a firewall, wherein the
firewall protected area is associated with a private network, and a
network management station (NMS) in the private network
segregated from the firewall protected area, the firewall protected area
being positioned between the private network and a public network,
comprising the following carried out by a de-militarized zone (DMZ)
controller in the firewall protected area:

obtaining from at least one managed device in the firewall protected
area management information associated with the at least one
managed device; and

Appeal 2011-004531
Application 11/069,484

3
transmitting the obtained management information from the DMZ
controller through the firewall to a gateway module in the private
network associated with the NMS, communications between the DMZ
controller and the gateway module being enabled by a single firewall
rule.

The Examiner rejected all pending claims 1-49 as being anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Larson2 (Ans. 3-14).

CLAIM GROUPINGS
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of groups of independent claims as set forth below. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
1. A DMZ, or demilitarized zone, is defined as a firewall protected area.
(Spec. ¶ 2.)
2. Fig. 1 illustrates a DMZ located in between a firewall and a private
network, and in between a second firewall and a public IP (Internet
protocol) network. (Fig. 1 and Spec. ¶ 48.)
3. A DMZ controller is provided in the DMZ. (Spec. ¶ 45.)
4. In Fig. 1, the DMZ controller and a plurality of managed devices are
in the DMZ, which is located in between a firewall and a private

2 Larson, US 2003/0069848 A1; published Apr. 10, 2003.
Appeal 2011-004531
Application 11/069,484

4
network, and in between a second firewall and a public IP (Internet
protocol) network. (Fig. 1 and Spec. ¶ 48.)
5. In Larson, a firewall is on an application server, between the Internet
and a computer network (Larson Fig. 1 and Spec. ¶ 22.)

INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 20, and 35
ISSUES
In view of Appellants’ contentions, we consider as dispositive, the
issues whether Larson discloses the DMZ controller “obtaining from at least
one managed device in the firewall protected area management information
associated with the at least one managed device,” and “transmitting the
obtained management information from the DMZ controller through the
firewall to a gateway module in the private network.”

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Larson, which generally discloses user
interfaces for computer network management using wireless devices, fails to
disclose: (i) the obtaining of information by the DMZ controller from
managed devices in the DMZ (Br. 9); (ii) the transmission of information
from the DMZ controller through the firewall to the private network (Br. 9
and Reply Br. 2-3); and (iii) the DMZ controller being located in a firewall
protected area in which a DMZ controller and managed devices are located
in a DMZ with a firewall in between the DMZ and the public Internet
network, and a second firewall in between the DMZ and a private network
(Reply Br. 2).
Appeal 2011-004531
Application 11/069,484

5
We agree with Appellants. “A claim is anticipated only if each and
every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., v.
Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “The identical
invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the . . .
claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir.
1989).
The Examiner’s Rejection cited the Abstract, and paragraphs 22 and
110 of Larson. We do not read the cited passages of Larson as disclosing the
obtaining of management information by a DMZ controller from managed
devices located in the firewall protected area, or the transmission of the
information obtained by the DMZ controller from managed devices in the
firewall protected area, through a firewall to a private network.
The Examiner’s Response to Appellants’ Argument did not cite the
Abstract, or paragraphs 22 or 110 of Larson, and instead cited Fig. 1 of
Larson, and paragraphs 82, 83, 84, and 86. We do not find that the cited
portions of Larson disclose either the transmission of information obtained
by the DMZ controller from managed devices in the firewall protected area,
through a firewall to a private network, or a firewall protected area in which
a DMZ controller and managed devices are located, with a firewall in
between the DMZ and the public Internet network, and a second firewall in
between the DMZ and a private network (FFs 1, 3, 4, 5).

Appeal 2011-004531
Application 11/069,484

6
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 18
ISSUE
In view of Appellants’ contentions, we consider as dispositive, the
issue whether Larson discloses a gateway module in a private network
“receiving management information, from a DMZ controller in the firewall
protected area through the firewall, the management information being
associated with at least one managed device in the firewall protected area
and obtained from the at least one managed device” (Br. 11-12; Reply Br.
3).

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants, for the reasons set forth above as to claims
1, 20 and 35. Claim 18 differs from claims 1, 20, and 35 in that it recites the
receipt by a gateway module in a private network of management
information through a firewall, rather than obtaining and transmitting
management information through a firewall. The analysis set forth above
also applies for claim 18.

INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 12, 29, and 44
ISSUES
In view of Appellants’ contentions, we consider as dispositive, the
issues whether Larson discloses “receiving at a demilitarized zone (DMZ)
controller in the firewall protected area, from at least one managed device in
the firewall protected area, management information associated with the at
least one managed device,” and “transmitting the received management
Appeal 2011-004531
Application 11/069,484

7
information from the DMZ controller through the firewall to a gateway
module in the private network” (Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 3).
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants, for the same reasons set forth above as to
claims 1, 20, and 35.

INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 14, 19, 31, and 46
ISSUE
In view of Appellants’ contentions, we consider as dispositive, the
issue whether Larson discloses “communicating simple network
management protocol (SNMP) requests and responses through a firewall
between a network management station (NMS) in a private network and
managed devices in a firewall protected area defined by the firewall
associated with the private network, wherein the firewall protected area is
associated with the private network and is positioned between the private
network and a public network” (Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 4).

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants for the reasons discussed above.

SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

REVERSED

rwk