Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

10404978 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
10/404,978 03/31/2003 Hong C. Li 884.883US1 8887
21186 7590 03/02/2017
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
KYLE, TAMARA TESLOVICH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONG C. LI, RAVI SAHITA, and SATYENDRA YADAV
Appeal 2015-004516
Application 10/404,978
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In an earlier Decision involving the instant application and the Desai
reference (infra), Ex Parte Appeal 2010-011327 mailed May 30, 2013 (the
“Prior Decision”), we reversed the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being anticipated by Desai.
Appeal 2015-004516
Application 10/404,978
In this appeal, Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of
the Examiner’s Final Decision rejecting claims 1—24, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. See Final Act. 1—2; App. Br. 14.1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns machine-readable media,
systems, and methods for managing security policies of computing devices
of a network, in particular, security policies pushed over the network
security-enabled devices. For example, the method provides dynamically
pushing a security policy from a first security device to a second security-
enabled device over a network wherein the security policy is an executable
script and the security-enabled device automatically executes the policy.
Spec. 12, 18, 21—31; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method comprising:
dynamically detecting, on a first security device, security
information obtained from a second security-enabled device over
a network connection between the first security device and the
second security-enabled device, wherein the security information
1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) (filed Mar. 31, 2003);
Appeal Brief (“App. Br,”) (filed Sept. 23, 2014); and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) (filed Mar. 16, 2015). We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) (mailed Jan.14, 2015), and Final Office Action (Final Rejection)
(“Final Act.”) (mailed Jan. 21, 2014).
2
Appeal 2015-004516
Application 10/404,978
is related to activity occurring on the second security-enabled
device detected by a security mechanism of the second security-
enabled device and produced in a first data format specific to the
security mechanism that is already processing on the second
security-enabled device;
normalizing the security information from the first data
format into an intermediate data format before being processed
by the first security device;
recording the normalized security information in a data
repository; and
dynamically pushing from the first security device a
security policy in response to the normalized security
information to the second security-enabled device over the
network in the first data format for enforcement on the second
security-enabled device, and wherein enforcement occurs on the
second security-enabled device, and wherein the security policy
is an executable script and the security-enabled device
automatically and dynamically executes the executable script to
provide adaptive and dynamic security policy detection and
enforcement.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Desai et al. (US 2003/0188189 Al, published Oct. 2, 2003
(filed Mar. 27, 2002)) (“Desai”) and Cheng (US 2002/0184525 Al,
published Dec. 5, 2002) (“Cheng”).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us is as follows:
3
Appeal 2015-004516
Application 10/404,978
Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Desai and
Cheng collectively would have taught or suggested
dynamically pushing from the first security device a
security policy in response to the normalized security
information to the second security-enabled device over the
network in the first data format for enforcement on the second
security-enabled device . . . wherein the security policy is an
executable script and the security-enabled device automatically
and dynamically executes the executable script to provide
adaptive and dynamic security policy detection and enforcement
within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations
of claims 7, 12, and 19?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Desai and Cheng do not teach the disputed
limitations of claim 1. See App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2—3. Specifically
Appellants contend that Desai does not teach an executable script,
referencing our Prior Decision (see App. Br. 12) and Cheng does not
describe security policies which are executable scripts “capable of being
executed by the firewall or the devices controlled by the firewall” (App. Br.
11—12; see Reply Br. 2—3).
We have reviewed the sections of Desai and Cheng cited by the
Examiner, as well as the detailed discussions of the references by Appellants
and the Examiner. Appellants persuade us of error in the obviousness
rejection of claim 1. The Examiner finds that Desai generally describes
security policies. See Final Act. 2, 5 (citing Desai Tflf 17, 24, 26, 27, 76, 85,
89, 93, 96, 101, and 103). We disagree, however, with the Examiner that
Desai describes or suggests pushing a security policy that is automatically
4
Appeal 2015-004516
Application 10/404,978
executed. Ans. 5. Desai does not explicitly teach a “security policy,” much
less that such a policy is automatically executed by a firewall or intrusion
detection system. The only mention of a policy in the Examiner cited
portions of Desai occurs in Desai’s paragraph 96, which discloses a sensor
policy, but does not describe automatic execution of such a policy.
Similarly, Cheng describes scripts, but these scripts are not executable
(self-executing) at the device to be configured, rather Cheng describes
creating device specific configuration documents (files), and that these
device specific documents (“configuration script documents” (Cheng 149))
are then utilized to configure firewall security. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br.
2—3 (compare Final Act. 2, 5; Ans. 3—6 (citing Cheng 149)). Cheng
explicitly states that the security policy is transformed, via a script, prior to
being sent (pushed) to the security device. See Cheng || 46, 49.
It is unclear from the Examiner’s mapping of the prior art elements to
the claim limitations how the combination of Desai and Cheng teach or
suggest automatic execution of a security policy, which is an executable
script, at a security device. Neither Desai, nor Cheng, alone or in
combination, describes such an executable script. Further, assuming without
deciding that Cheng suggests an executable script, the Examiner has not
sufficiently explained how the Cheng’s purported executable script might be
implemented in Desai’s security device.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Desai and Cheng teach the disputed
limitations of Appellants’ claim 1. Independent claims 7, 12, and 19 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2—6, 8—11, 13—18, and 20-24
5
Appeal 2015-004516
Application 10/404,978
depend on claims 1, 7, 12, and 19, respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—24.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—24.
REVERSED
6