Ex Parte Kabbara

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

12710223 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121710,223 02/22/2010 Hazem Kabbara
56436 7590 02/19/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82274996 8264
EXAMINER
MOOR THY, ARA VIND K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAZEM KABBARA
Appeal2014-003662
Application 12/710,223
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1---6, 33-37, 62, and 63. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 7-32 and 38---61 are canceled. See Final Act. 2; Reply Br. 3.
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003662
Application 12/710,223
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claims
Claim 1 of Appellant's invention is independent and illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal (disputed limitations italicized):
1. A method comprising:
App. Br. 14.
(A) at a network traffic receiving subsystem :
(A) (1) receiving first network traffic;
(A) (2) identifying a first source of the first
network traffic;
(A) (3) requesting a first present trust level of the
first source from a present trust subsystem;
(A) (4) receiving the first present trust level of the
first source from the present trust subsystem;
(A) (5) determining whether to provide the first
network traffic to an intrusion prevention subsystem
based on the first present trust level of the first source;
and
(A) (6) providing the first network traffic to the
intrusion prevention subsystem if it is determined that the
first network traffic should be provided to the intrusion
prevention subsystem.
The Examiners Rejections
Claims 1---6, 33-37, 62, and 63 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Shull et al. (US 2006/0212931 Al; published
Sept. 21, 2006). See Final Act. 3-10.
2
Appeal2014-003662
Application 12/710,223
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Shull fails to disclose providing network traffic to
an intrusion prevention subsystem ("IPS ") based on a trust level as required
by the disputed limitations italicized above. App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 5-7.
Specifically, Appellant argues Shull does not disclose the disputed
limitations because Shull' s client application determines on its own whether
to block or allow the network traffic from the online entity, without
providing the network traffic to an IPS. See App. Br. 8.
We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive because the arguments
rely on an unduly narrow interpretation of the disputed claim limitations.
Contrary to Appellant's argument, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
claim 1 does not require the IPS to be separate and removed from the
network traffic receiving subsystem ("NTRS"), which performs each of the
disputed claim limitations. Put another way, claim 1 does not preclude the
IPS from being a part of the NTRS. This interpretation is consistent with
Appellant's Specification, which does not specifically define an IPS but
discloses that all of the steps of claim 1 can be performed on a single system.
See Spec. Fig. 3B, i-fi-1 8, 9, 44; cf Spec. i120 (disclosing that packet-
processing IPS resources can be located externally or within a network
adapter). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner's broad but
reasonable interpretation of the disputed claim limitations as including
Shull's client application. See Final Act. 3--4; Shull i196; Fig. 6. Indeed,
Shull' s client application performs the functions of both the NTRS and IPS
by determining to allow, and therefore, allowing network traffic based on a
trust score. See Final Act. 3--4; Shull i1 96; Fig. 6.
3
Appeal2014-003662
Application 12/710,223
Having considered the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments and the evidence of record, we are unpersuaded of error and
adopt as our own the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and reasons
consistent with the above. See Final Act. 2-10; Ans. 3---6. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1; as well as
independent claims 33 and 62 and dependent claims 2-5, 34--37, and 63,
which were not argued separately with particularity beyond the arguments
advanced for claim 1. See App. Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 7.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 33-37, 62, and 63
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
ELD
4