Ex Parte Giles et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2012

10896676 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VINCENT GILES and BRIAN JEMES
____________________

Appeal 2009-012952
Application 10/896,676
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012952
Application 10/896,676

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to computer networks, and more particularly,
to a method and apparatus for implementing network security policy control
in a network infrastructure. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A secured network configured to carry data,
comprising a plurality of network bubbles and a plurality of
network control points,

wherein each said network bubble comprises one or more
bubble partitions and each said bubble partition comprises at
least one networked device configured to transmit and receive
data, and all of the network devices corresponding to at least
one of the plurality of network bubbles have a common
network security policy,

wherein at least one network control point is provided
with a marker module arranged to mark outgoing packets with a
label corresponding to the network bubble from which the
packets originate that can be used to enforce the network
security policy of the at least one network bubble.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lo US 5,850,515 Dec. 15, 1998
Hamadeh US 2004/0093521 Al May 13, 2004

Appeal 2009-012952
Application 10/896,676

3
Lee et al, On the Issues of IP Traceback for IPv6 and Mobile IPv6,
Proceedings of the Eight IEEE International Symposium on Computers and
Communications, vol. 1, 582-587 (2003), available at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1214181
(hereinafter “Lee H.”).

Hyunq-Woo Lee, Advanced Packet Marking Mechanism with Push
back for IP Traceback, Applied Cryptography and Network Security,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3089 Springer, 426-438 (2004)
(hereinafter “Lee”)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18, 21-23, 25, 28-32, and 35 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hamadeh.
Claims 7, 17, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hamadeh in view of Lo.
Claims 9, 19, 26, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hamadeh in view of Lee.
Claims 10, 20, 27, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hamadeh in view of Lee H.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants argue that “Hamadeh does not disclose, teach, or suggest
at least the limitation] ‘wherein at least one network control point is
provided with a marker module arranged to mark outgoing packets with a
label corresponding to the network bubble from which the packets originate
that can be used to enforce the network security policy of the at least one
network bubble.’” (App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3). The Examiner
Appeal 2009-012952
Application 10/896,676

4
maintains that Hamadeh’s paragraphs [0066)] and [0071] describe this
limitation regarding outgoing packets. (Ans. 4).
The Examiner maintains that Hamadeh describes the disputed
limitation of independent claim 1 and independent claims 12, 21, and 28,
which have corresponding limitations. The Examiner maintains that:
S]ee paragraph 0066, “To protect the server 45, the entity
operating or otherwise responsible for security of that device
could identify all of the routers at the perimeter of its trust
region and request that those routers mark all packets that are
destined for the server 45 under consideration. In the example,
assume that the trust region for the server 45 includes the
network areas of AS1 (11) and AS2 (13). However, the
network areas of AS (15) are outside this trusted region. The
server 45 (or a party representing/protecting the server) would
request that the routers forming the boundary of this trusted
region (boundaries of AS1 and AS2) perform the marking on
incoming packets from untrusted systems.

(Ans. 4) (emphasis omitted). From our review of the relied upon
portions of Hamadeh, we cannot agree with the Examiner that
Hamadeh describes “a marker module arranged to mark outgoing
packets” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). We find
Hamadeh describes marking being performed at an input port
processor as identified in figure 2. Therefore, Hamadeh does not
describe “a marker module arranged to mark outgoing packets” (claim
1), but rather teaches marking incoming packets. Therefore, the
Examiner has not shown Hamadeh anticipates independent claim 1.
Additionally, we cannot sustain the anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6, 8, and 11, which
depend therefrom. Independent claims 12, 21, and 28 contain similar
Appeal 2009-012952
Application 10/896,676

5
limitations not described by Hamadeh. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the rejection thereof and their corresponding dependent claims
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102.

35 U.S.C. §103
With respect to dependent claims 7, 9, 10, 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 33,
and 34, the Examiner has not identified how the teachings of Lo, Lee, and
Lee H references remedy the above-noted deficiency. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the rejections of dependent claims 7, 9, 10, 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 33,
and 34.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18, 21-23, 25,
28-32, and 35 based upon 35 U.S.C. § 102 and erred in rejecting claims 7, 9,
10, 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 33, and 34 based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-35 are
reversed.

REVERSED

llw