Ex Parte Rossbach et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2011

10137974 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DENNIS R. ROSSBACH and MICHAEL A. KVASNAK
____________________

Appeal 2009-007606
Application 10/137,974
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JAY P. LUCAS, THU A. DANG, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007606
Application 10/137,974

I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-10 and
12-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Claim 11 has been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to an electronic
network filter for classified partitioning (Spec. 1, ¶ [0002]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below:

1. An electronic network filter for classified partitioning in
an asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) network having an
ATM switch in a classified sub-network and a plurality of test
systems in an unclassified network, said electronic network
filter comprising:

a classified network buffer in communication with said
ATM switch and each of said plurality of test systems for real
time filtering of data packets being sent between said classified
and unclassified networks.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Addington US 6,405,239 B1 Jun. 11, 2002

2
Appeal 2009-007606
Application 10/137,974

Claims 1-10 and 12-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Addington.

II. ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited portions of Addington
disclose “a classified network buffer in communication with said ATM
switch and each of said plurality of test systems” (claim 1)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Addington
1) Addington discloses a broadcast file system wherein data
available from the plurality of servers is periodically broadcast to the client
and the client filters out the requested portion of data to be provided to the
client application (Abstract).
2) A one-way broadcast file system 200 includes a plurality of
servers 202 and 204 coupled to a server access network 206, wherein the
server access network 206 couples the plurality of servers 202 and 204 to a
Broadcast File System (BFS) server 208 and to a broadcast delivery network
210, and the broadcast delivery network 210 transports data available from
the plurality of servers to a client 212 (col. 3, ll. 10-19; Fig. 2).
3) The client filters out the specified data requested by the client
application from this periodically broadcast data and provides the specified
data provided by the client, and then the client application sends a file close
indication to the client (col. 4, ll. 44-49).
3
Appeal 2009-007606
Application 10/137,974

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that “[t]he Addington patent discloses a ‘broadcast
network file system’ primarily for use in cable set-top boxes” which “is in
no way related to the instant application, which discloses a network filter for
separating classified and unclassified data systems through a classified
network buffer (a computer hardware device)” (App. Br. 6). Appellants
explain that “the instant application discloses an electronic network filer for
classified partitioning in an ATM network 10 (see Figure 2)” wherein “[t]he
filter has a classified network buffer 32 for identifying whether data is
classified or unclassified to define invalid and valid data packets” (App. Br.
7). As to Addington, Appellants argue that “rather than filtering out
classified data, Addington teaches broadcasting substantially all data from
the server to each client” (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner finds that “[o]ne [of] ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention knows that specified data is interpreted as classified data”
wherein “[d]ata with specific parameters to restrict to be viewed by the only
specific viewers” (Ans. 6). That is, according to the Examiner, “any
information or data within a local area network and wide area network
would be comprised of classified or unclassified distinction” wherein “data
within Intranet within the inside of the firewall is considered classified data
and where as data over the Internet viewed by the public is considered as
non-classified data” (id.). Further, the Examiner finds that “the selected
parameters [of Addington for filtering out matched data during broadest via
the broadcast delivery network] fulfill the requirement of the buffer” (Ans.
7).
4
Appeal 2009-007606
Application 10/137,974

After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with the Appellants
that the portions of Addington cited by the Examiner fail to disclose “a
classified network buffer in communication with said ATM switch and each
of said plurality of test systems” as required by claim 1.
Addington discloses a broadcast file system in which data available
from the plurality of servers is periodically broadcast to the client, and the
client filters out the requested portion of data to be provided to the client
application (FF 1-3). Thus, in Addington, broadcast data is filtered out at
the client and thus the client receives only requested data. Contrary to the
Examiner’s findings, we do not find any teachings in the portions of
Addington cited by the Examiner of a “network buffer” that is “in
communication with said ATM switch and each of said plurality of test
system” as required by claim 1. In fact, we do not find (and the Examiner
has not identified) any “network buffer” (emphasis added) in communication
with “an ATM switch in a classified network” (emphasis added) in the
portions of Addington referenced by the Examiner. That is, though we agree
with the Examiner “specified data” as disclosed by Addington could be
interpreted to be “classified data,” we find that Addington’s client filter for
filtering broadcast data described in the cited portions does not comprise a
“classified network buffer” in communication with an “ATM switch in a
classified sub-network” and each of a “plurality of test systems in an
unclassified network” as required by the commensurate language of claim 1.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in
finding that the portions cited by the Examiner disclose the disputed
limitation. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of representative
claim 1 and claims 2-10 and 12-21 standing therewith.
5
Appeal 2009-007606
Application 10/137,974

We are therefore constrained on this record to find that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-21
standing therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Addington.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in finding that claims 1-10
and 12-21 are anticipated 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).

REVERSED

peb

OSTRAGER CHONG FLAHERTY & BROITMAN, P.C.
570 LEXINGTON AVENUE
FLOOR 17
NEW YORK, NY 10022-6894
6