Ex Parte Reyes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12329905 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/329,905 12/08/2008
83719 7590 09/27/2016
AT & T Legal Department - FKM
AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT,
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING ROOM 2A-207
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gustavo de los Reyes
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.
2008- l 648A ( 4014 7 /08003) 9792
EXAMINER
ELL, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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 GUSTA VO DE LOS REYES and SANJA Y MACWAN
Appeal2015-003898
Application 12/329,905
Technology Center 2100
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is AT&T Intellectual
Property I, LP. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-003898
Application 12/329,905
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to storing a virtual representation of a
plurality of physical components, introducing a component to interact with
the virtual representation, and generating indications of a response of the
virtual representation to the interactions of the component. Abstract. Claim
1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows with the
disputed limitation italicized:
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
including a set of instructions that, when executed a processor,
cause the processor to perform operations, comprising:
storing a virtual representation of a plurality of physical
components;
introducing an object having a predefined functionality to
interact with the virtual representation;
monitoring the virtual representation to identify a response
of the virtual representation to interactions of the object; and
generating indications of the response of the virtual
representation to interactions of the object, the indications of the
response including an indication of effectiveness of automated
implementation by the virtual representation of countermeasures
to the object, the indications further including an indication of a
type of countermeasures used and an indication of the manner in
which the countermeasures responded to the object.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Park (US 2003/0182582 Al; Sept. 25, 2003)
and Fujiyama (US 6,971,026 Bl; Nov. 29, 2005). Final Act. 2-7.
2
Appeal2015-003898
Application 12/329,905
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Park, Fujiyama, and Futoransky (US 2009/0007270 Al;
Jan. 1, 2009). Final Act. 7-8.
Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Park, Fujiyama, and Shipman (US 2005/0022014 Al; Jan.
27, 2005). Final Act. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions. Except as noted below, 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 in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. \Ve highlight the follov1ing points for
emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Park and Fujiyama teaches or suggests the disputed "generating" limitation.
App. Br. 3-6; Reply Br. 3--4. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner
concedes Park does not teach this limitation, instead relying on Fujiyama.
App. Br. 3 (citing Final Act. 3--4).
Appellants argue Fujiyama does not cure Park's deficiency because
Fujiyama "does not relate to monitoring or evaluating the implementation of
countermeasures, but, rather, describes techniques for configuring the
implementation of countermeasures." App. Br. 4. Appellants argue
Fujiyama merely discloses a countermeasures "database" that defines how a
3
Appeal2015-003898
Application 12/329,905
system responds to detected threats instead of evaluating a system's
response to threats. Appellants argue the Examiner's understanding of
Fujiyama is "erroneous" because it does not monitor a virtual representation
and therefore cannot monitor countermeasures as described in claim 1.
Reply Br. 3. Appellants also argue that even if Park is "evaluat[ing]
effectiveness of responses to various threats to a system," Park does not
disclose "type and effectiveness of countermeasures in the context of
evaluation of response by a system to threats." App. Br. 5-6.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Appellants'
argument that Fujiyama is merely a countermeasures database is
unpersuasive and unsupported by the record. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, Fujiyama teaches a countermeasures database. Ans. 4 (citing
Fujiyama Abstract). In particular, Fujiyama teaches a system that evaluates
the state of security after countermeasures are executed. Ans. 5 (citing
Fujiyama ,,L\ .. bstract). As noted by the Examiner, the difference bet\veen Park
and claim 1 "merely boils down to the specifics of the 'indications' as the
claims require specifically indicating the effectiveness of countermeasures to
the object, which further indicate the type of countermeasures use[ d]." Ans.
3. The Examiner correctly finds Fujiyama teaches these indications. Ans. 5.
Further, Appellants' argument that Fujiyama does not monitor a
virtual representation is unpersuasive because Appellants' argument focuses
on the disclosure of Fujiyama instead of Park. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ). The Examiner explained that the combination of Fujiyama and Park,
4
Appeal2015-003898
Application 12/329,905
and in particular Park, discloses this limitation. See Ans. 3; Final Act. 2-3.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Park and Fujiyama. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1. Appellants argue the patentability of independent claim 11 for the
same reasons as claim 1. See App. Br. 7. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 11 for the same reason as set forth above. We also sustain
the rejections of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, which were not argued
separately with particularity. See App. Br. 6-11.
DECISION
\Ve affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5