Ex Parte Hay et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

13705705 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131705,705 12/05/2012 ROEEHAY
73109 7590 09/28/2016
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
IL920120075US1_8150-0320 8158
EXAMINER
STEINLE, ANDREW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2497
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROEE HAY, DANIEL KALMAN,
ROI SALTZMAN, and OMER TRIPP
Appeal2015-003348
Application 13/705,705
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BETH Z. SHAW, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 9-11, 14--19, and 22-25, which are the only claims
currently pending in this application. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
RELATED APPEALS
This appeal is related to an Appeal 2015-005652 (U.S. Application
No. 14/026,647). Appellants did not identify the related appeal. App. Br. 2.
Appellants are reminded that they have a duty to identify:
all other prior and pending appeals, interferences, trials before the
Board, or judicial proceedings ... [that] involve an application or
patent owned by the appellant or assignee, are known to appellant, the
Appeal2015-003348
Application 13/705,705
appellant's legal representative, or assignee, and may be related to,
directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the
Board's decision in the pending appeal.
37 C.F.R. § 31.41(c)(ii) (2014).
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to computer tools for detecting
security vulnerabilities. Spec. i-f 3.
Claim 9, which is representative, reads as follows:
9. A system for identifying security vulnerabilities on computing
devices, the system comprising:
a processor programmed to initiate executable operations comprising:
detecting an inter-process communication on a computing device;
determining whether the inter-process communication is consistent
with a predefined specification of a security vulnerability; and
causing a predefined action to be performed on the computing device
responsive to determining that the inter-process communication is consistent
with a predefined specification of a security vulnerability, wherein
the determining comprises determining where the security
vulnerability is a susceptibility to a confidentiality violation.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 9-11, 14--19, and 22-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Freund (US 2004/0199763 Al;
published Oct. 7, 2004). Final Act. 5-8.
ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejections are in error. App. Br.
8-12; Reply Br. 2. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is:
2
Appeal2015-003348
Application 13/705,705
Did the Examiner err in finding Freund discloses "determining where
the security vulnerability is a susceptibility to a confidentiality violation," as
recited in claim 9?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. See Final Act. 2-8; Ans. 2-3. We
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
Appellants argue that Freund fails to disclose "wherein the
determining comprises determining where the security vulnerability is a
susceptibility to a confidentiality violation," as recited in claim 9. App. Br.
8-12; Reply Br. 2.
Here, the Examiner finds Freund's monitoring connection of potential
malware requests discloses the disputed limitation of claim 9. See Ans. 2-3
(citing Freund i-f 72); Final Act. 6 (citing Freund i-fi-172-73, 88). Freund
describes that connection requests are monitored, and that an incoming
connection request attempts to create a communication channel (port), but
that connection request can be trapped and re-directed, resulting in access
being blocked. Id. (citing i-f 72; see also i-fi-173, 76, 84). The connection
request attempt includes sufficient information (e.g., text string) to allow
determination of the type of service being requested. Ans. 3 (citing f 72).
Once the communication port has been opened, malware may send messages
3
Appeal2015-003348
Application 13/705,705
to a DNS server, including sending confidential information to a malicious
DNS server. Id. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the connection
requests are inter-process communications that are monitored and assessed
to determine what type of service is being requested. Id. The Examiner
finds paragraph 72 refers to one such request, which is a confidentiality
violation. Id. This type of request can be detected and mitigated by trapping
or re-directing. Ans. 2-3; see also Freund i-fi-173. 84.
Although Appellants argue that requesting a type of service does not
identically disclose the claimed "'determining whether the inter-process
communication is consistent with a susceptibility to a confidentiality
violation,'" (Reply Br. 2), we are not persuaded. As described above,
Freund describes monitoring connection requests, trapping, and redirecting
certain requests to determine whether the requesting application has
appropriate privileges, because if a requesting application does not have
appropriate privileges, it may be used to send confidential information to a
malicious DNS server. Freund i-fi-172, 73, 84. Appellants argue that the
claimed invention involves "characterizing the type of security violation."
App. Br. 9. However, this limitation is not recited in claim 9, and we
decline to import this argued limitation into the claim.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that under a broad but
reasonable interpretation of the claim, Freund discloses "determining where
the security vulnerability is a susceptibility to a confidentiality violation," as
recited in claim 9 because Freund discloses determining where a request of
malware may be used to send confidential information to a malicious DNS
server. See Freund i-fi-1 72-73. In the absence of sufficient evidence or line
4
Appeal2015-003348
Application 13/705,705
of technical reasoning to the contrary, the Examiner's findings are
reasonable and we find no reversible error.
Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those
previously discussed for patentability above (see App. Br. 8-12), the
remaining pending claims fall for the same reasons as claim 9. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9-11, 14--19, and 22-25
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5