Ex Parte Khan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 201411808604 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte FAUD AHMAD KHAN and KEVIN MCNAMEE ____________________ Appeal 2012-009905 Application 11/808,604 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-009905 Application 11/808,604 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 8, 10–15, and 17–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 8 under appeal reads as follows (formatting added): 1. A method of matching data content, comprising: [(a)] identifying items of data that would be potentially harmful if transferred through a network; [(b)] creating a list containing the identified items of potentially harmful data; [(c)] identifying a field of interest for each item of potentially harmful data on the created list; [(d)] deriving a single hash value from the identified field of interest for each item of potentially harmful data on the created list; [(e)] storing the derived hash values in a hash value table; [(f)] receiving a data stream containing data packets; [(g)] identifying a field of interest for each data packet in the data stream, wherein the identified field of interest for each data packet in the data stream corresponds to the identified field of interest for each item of potentially harmful data on the created list; [(h)] calculating a single hash value from the identified field of interest for each data packet in the data stream; [(i)] evaluating whether any of the calculated hash values for each data packet in the data stream matches any of the derived hash values for each item of potentially harmful data on the created list; [(j)] discovering a hash value match between one of the fields of interest for one of the data packets in the data stream and one of the fields of interest for one of the items of potentially harmful data on the created list; Appeal 2012-009905 Application 11/808,604 3 [(k)] retrieving actual contents of the one item of data on the created list by following a pointer in the hash table to a signature entry in a signature table containing the actual contents; [(l)] comparing the actual contents of the one data packet in the data stream to the actual contents of the one item of data on the created list; [(m)] confirming a match between the actual contents of the one data packet in the data stream and the one item of data on the created list; and [(n)] applying a filter policy that restricts a further transfer of the one data packet through the network only after confirming the match. Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 8, 11, 14, 17, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Shakara (US 2006/0212426 A1), pub. Sep, 21, 2006, Milliken (US 2004/0073617 A1), pub. Apr. 15, 2004, and Bartas (US 2005/0060535 A1), pub. Mar. 17, 2005. 1 The Examiner rejected claims 3-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over various combinations of Shakara, Milliken, Bartas, and numerous other references.2 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 11, 14, 17, 19, and 22. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims 11, 14, 17, 19, and 22 are not discussed further herein. 2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, and 23. Rather, Appellants argue these claims only by referencing the argument for claims 8 and 17 from which these claims depend. The § 103 rejections of these claims turn on our decision as to the underlying § 103 Appeal 2012-009905 Application 11/808,604 4 Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “Shakara's first comparison fails to use the actual contents of the data packet.” Appellant respectfully submits that Shakara’s first comparison fails to use the actual contents of the data packet. Instead, Shakara actually uses hash keys, calculating hash results “by performing a hash on each hash key.” See paragraph [0038]. Thus, Shakara teaches away from comparing actual contents. Because Shakara’s first comparison does not use the actual contents, Shakara also cannot confirm a match between the actual contents in the data stream and the actual contents in the created list as claimed. App. Br. 7. 2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: As further defined in paragraph [0057], Shakara’s “byte-by- byte comparison is made against a particular search string” rather than actual contents of a full packet. Reply Br. 3. 3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: In paragraph [0064], Shakara emphasizes that the byte-by-byte comparison uses an “embedded string depicted in packet payload 500B” rather than the entire payload. Reply Br. 3. rejection of claim 8. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2012-009905 Application 11/808,604 5 4. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Milliken and Bartas fail to remedy the deficiencies of Shakara. App. Br. 7. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 8 as being obvious? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3–6) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree. Appellants’ claim 8 recites two data comparison operations: The first being hash comparison at steps (i)&(j), and the second being actual contents comparison steps (l)&(m) of the claim. Contrary to Appellants’ argument that Shakara teaches away from comparing actual contents, the Examiner correctly points out that Shakara teaches a first data comparison using hashing (¶ [0038]), and Shakara teaches a second data comparison using actual contents (¶¶ [0039]-[0042]). Appellants’ argument that Shakara’s first hashing comparison is not the same as Appellants’ second actual contents comparison ignores the actual reasoning of the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants’ argument is nonresponsive as it sets up and knocks down a Appeal 2012-009905 Application 11/808,604 6 straw man, and as such fails to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. Examiner error cannot be shown based on misstatements of the record. As to Appellants’ above contention 2, we disagree. Appellants mischaracterize Shakara’s paragraph [0057] as being a “byte-by-byte comparison is made against a particular search string” rather than actual contents of a full packet. In fact, Shakara’s paragraph [0057] is saying that a “byte-by-byte comparison [of packet payload data] is made against a particular search string.” This is readily apparent from Shakara’s paragraph [0042]. Appellants’ argument fails to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. As to Appellants’ above contention 3, we disagree. Appellants mischaracterize Shakara’s paragraph [0064] as being related to Shakara’s actual contents comparison. In fact, Shakara’s paragraph [0064] is related to Shakara’s hash comparison and not Shakara’s actual contents comparison. Paragraph [0064] concludes by stating that the hit (from using the embedded string) was in fact a false hit, “would be determined during the byte-by-byte comparison” (which is in the actual contents comparison that would follow the hashing comparison of Shakara’s paragraph [0064]). As we have previously stated, Examiner error cannot be shown based on misstatements of the record. As to Appellants’ above contention 4, we disagree that the Examiner has erred. As discussed above, we have concluded that Appellants’ alleged deficiencies in the Shakara reference do not existed. Therefore, there are no deficiencies for Milliken and Bartas to remedy. Appeal 2012-009905 Application 11/808,604 7 CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 8, 10–15, and 17– 23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 8, 10–15, and 17–23 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 8, 10–15, and 17–23 are 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Ssc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation