Ex Parte Reumann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2015

12123084 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2015)

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.
12/123,084 05/19/2008 John Reumann YOR920060181US2 1137
48062 7590 03/20/2015
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
1175 Post Road East
2nd Floor
Westport, CT 06880
EXAMINER
FIELDS, COURTNEY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2496
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN REUMANN and DINESH C. VERMA
____________________

Appeal 2013-000161
Application 12/123,084
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-000161
Application 12/123,084

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1–5, 10–13, 16, and 19 (App. Br. 4). The Examiner indicates that
claims 6–9, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20–22 contain allowable subject matter
(Non-Final Office Action mailed April 26, 2012, p. 5). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to computer network
security (Spec. 1, ll. 8–9).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for improving security in a computer network,
comprising the steps of:
obtaining operational data for at least a first networked
application, wherein said operational data is generated during
normal operation of said first networked application;
obtaining enterprise data for at least a second networked
application, wherein said enterprise data is maintained
independent of said normal operation of said first networked
application;
correlating said data with said enterprise data to obtain
correlated data; and
using said correlated data to improve security of said
computer network, wherein one or more steps of said method
are performed by a hardware device.
Appeal 2013-000161
Application 12/123,084

3
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Connor US 2006/0259819 A1 Nov. 16, 2006

Claims 1–5, 10–13, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Connor.

II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
Connor discloses: “obtaining operational data” that is “generated during
normal operation of a first networked application,” “obtaining enterprise
data” that is “maintained independent of said normal operation,” and
“correlating said operational data with said enterprise data,” as recited in
claim 1 (emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Connor
1. Connor discloses a method for self-sustaining computer security,
which comprises a user entering the web site at which a supervisor
application (SA) is maintained and entering registration information
including a username and password at the web site, wherein the entered
information is added to a table in a database maintained on the server for the
web site (¶17).
2. The SA retrieves the MAC address of the user’s computer and
transmits that data to the SA web site (id.).
Appeal 2013-000161
Application 12/123,084

4
3. The MAC address is used in combination with the username and
password to provide identification for the computer on which the software is
installed (id.).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Connor’s “user name and password are not
‘enterprise data’ that is maintained independent of said normal operation of
said first network application” but rather “it is ‘operational data’ that is
generated during normal operation of the application” (App. Br. 6, emphasis
omitted). Appellants also contend “Connor does not disclose or suggest
correlating enterprise data with operational data, wherein the enterprise data
is maintained independent of the normal operation of a first networked
application” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds Connor discloses “the user can log in
remotely to the SA server on the internet with their username and password
(i.e. enterprise data)” and therefore “the enterprise data has been obtained”
(Ans. 4). The Examiner also finds “[t]he user also logs in using their local
machine and the SA software that was downloaded” and during this process,
“the MAC address (i.e. operational data) is surrendered” and thus “obtained”
(id.). The Examiner also finds “Connor discloses that the operational data
and enterprise data is maintained independently” because “the operational
data … was obtained from the user’s local machine (i.e. first networked
application) and the enterprise data was obtained when the user was logging
in remotely at the SA server (i.e. second networked application)” (id.). The
Examiner then finds “the operational data and enterprise data are compared
at the server” (id.).
Appeal 2013-000161
Application 12/123,084

5
We agree with the Examiner’s initial factual findings, and thus find no
error with the Examiner’s finding of anticipation.
We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). However, while we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in
light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from
the Specification into the claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1316, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted).
Although Appellants contend Connor’s “user name and password are
not ‘enterprise data’” (App. Br. 6), claim 1 merely requires the “enterprise
data” is “maintained independent of said normal operation of said first
networked application.” Giving the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation, we find the claim merely requires the “enterprise data” be
maintained independently from the normal operation of the networked
application for which “operational data” is obtained.
Connor discloses an application (SA) that retrieves the MAC address
of the user’s computer and transmits that data to the SA web site (FF 2).
Further, registration information is retrieved including a username and
password at the web site, wherein the entered information is added to a table
in a database maintained on the server for the web site (FF 1). That is,
Connor discloses obtaining the username and password, wherein the
username and password are maintained on the server for the website
independently of the normal operation of the application that retrieves the
MAC address at the user’s computer (FF 1–2).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding: “Connor discloses the
operational data and enterprise data [are] maintained independently” because
Appeal 2013-000161
Application 12/123,084

6
“the operational data . . . was obtained from the user’s local machine (i.e.
first networked application) and the enterprise data was obtained when the
user was logging in remotely at the SA server (i.e. second networked
application)” (Ans. 4). That is, we find no error with the Examiner’s broad
but reasonable interpretation that “enterprise data” encompasses Connor’s
registration information including username and password that is maintained
independently of the normal operation of the application for which operation
data is obtained. Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding Connor
discloses “obtaining enterprise data” that is “maintained independent of said
normal operation” of first networked application, as recited in claim 1.
Further, in Connor, the MAC address is used in combination with the
username and password to provide identification for the computer on which
the software is installed (FF 3). That is, Connor discloses using the MAC
address and the username/password in correlation for sustaining security of
the computer network (id.). We agree with the Examiner’s finding “the
operational data and enterprise data are compared at the server” (Ans. 4).
Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s broad but reasonable
interpretation that “correlating” operation and enterprise data encompasses
Connor’s comparison of the operational and enterprise data, i.e., the using of
the data in combination/correlation (id.).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 16 and 19 falling
therewith (App. Br. 6), and claims 2–5, 10–13 depending from claim 1, but
not separately argued, over Connor.
Appeal 2013-000161
Application 12/123,084

7
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 10–13, 16, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
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
lv