Ex Parte Schneider

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

11998093 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111998,093 11/27/2007
14400 7590 10/03/2016
Patent Docket Administrator
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
65 Livingston A venue
Roseland, NJ 07068
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James Paul Schneider
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.
05220.328 (P0295) 5099
EXAMINER
JOSHI, SURAJ M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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 JAMES PAUL SCHNEIDER
Appeal2015-005059
Application 11/998,093
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final 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 Appellant, the real party in interest is Red Hat Inc. (App.
Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-005059
Application 11/998,093
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to "a method to authenticate and secure
communications between a server agent and a network appliance in order to
allow arbitrary commands to be run on the server." (Nov. 27, 2007
Specification ("Spec.") i-f 3.)
Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a processing device of a monitored server, a
first request from a network appliance via an unsecured channel
of a first port, the first request comprising an identification of a
second port to connect to the monitored server;
negotiating, by the processing device, a secured
communication channel with the network appliance via the
identified second port;
connecting, by the processing device, with the network
appliance via the secured communication channel of the
identified second port;
retrieving; by the processing device; instn1ctions from the
network appliance via the secured communication channel of the
identified second port, the instructions comprising one or more
commands;
executing, by the processing device, the commands; and
sending, by the processing device, results of executing the
commands to the network appliance via the unsecured channel
of the first port.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Ahuja et al.
("Ahuja")
US 2006/0064736 Al
2
Mar. 23, 2006
Appeal2015-005059
Application 11/998,093
Merkh et al.
("Merkh")
McCall et al.
("McCall")
US 2006/0143301 Al June 29, 2006
US 2008/0127322 Al May 29, 2008
Claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ahuja in view of McCall. (See Final Office
Action (mailed Dec. July 3, 2014) ("Final Act.") 5-14.)
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ahuja in view of McCall, and further in view of Merkh.
(See Final Act. 14.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
positions.
"Receiving ... a First Request ...
Comprising an Identification of a Second Port . .. "
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ahuja teaches or
suggests "receiving ... a first request from a network appliance via an
unsecured channel of a first port, the first request comprising an
identification of a second port to connect to the monitored server." (Final
Act. 5---6.) Ahuja teaches a system "for asymmetric security in data
communications between two or more nodes[, whereby a]symmetric security
within data communications refers to sending and receiving messages at
different security levels." (Ahuja, Abstract.) Figure 3 of Ahuja is
reproduced below.
3
Appeal2015-005059
Application 11/998,093
Source NDde
J:Q2
Security
Apparatus
~2Q
322
334
FIG. 3
32G
Dest1r1ation Node
304
Sewri'ly
Apparatus
~
"FIG. 3 is a schematic block diagram illustrating one embodiment of a
communication system for asymmetric security[.]" (Ahuja i-f 33.)
Appellant contends that:
Ahuja taken in its entirety does not include even a single
occurrence of the word "port." While Ahuja teaches a system
comprising two nodes at two security levels, Ahuja includes no
teachings of using, for establishing a connection, identifications
of ports or values of any other functionally similar parameters of
the communication channels.
(Br. 8.) The Examiner explains that Ahuja teaches a
system [that] may include a first node and a second node. The
first node, in one embodiment, transmits a first message at a first
security level to the second node. The first security level may be
descriptive of a first encryption level and/or a first digital
signature level. The second node, in one embodiment, receives
the first message from the first node and transmits a second
message at a second security level to the first node in response to
receiving the first message .... the operations may include ...
communicating the second security level to the first node during
4
Appeal2015-005059
Application 11/998,093
a handshaking operation between the first node and a second
node. . . . Thus, here just like in the instant application, a
handshaking process takes place, a first message is sent a lower
security level, and in response a second message is sent at a
higher security level, and during a handshaking process, wherein
a first message is sent the second security level is communicated.
It is common knowledge wherein when a security level is
communicated, a specific port will be associated with the specific
security level. Thus, by communicating the second security level
during a handshake, the response message which is required to
be sent at the higher security level, it will be known by the first
node which port of the second node to communicate.
Furthermore, prior art McCall further clarifies, that the nodes
involved may be a monitored server and a network appliance
(Paragraphs 3, 18). It would [also] be reasonable for a
handshaking process to identifY to a specific port to connect back
to the node/server.
(Ans. 14--15, emphasis added.) In other words, the Examiner finds that it
would have been obvious during the handshaking process to identify a
specific port of the second node to communicate with. Appellant did not
respond and has not persuaded us that the Examiner has erred. ivforeover,
we also agree with the Examiner's finding regarding this limitation.
"Connecting, By the Processing Device,
With the Network Appliance Via the ... Identified Second Port"
The Examiner finds that:
With regards to Claim 1, Ahuja teaches a method
compnsmg:
connecting, by the processing device, with the first node on the
secured communication channel of the identified second port to
retrieve data from the first node; and sending, by the processing
device, a third message on the unsecured channel of the first port
in response to the second message from the second node ...
5
Appeal2015-005059
Application 11/998,093
AnuJa does not explicitly 01sc10se the network appliance
connecting to a monitored server ....
[However,] McCall does teach [] the network appliance
connecting to a monitored server [because] advances in
networking and distributed applications have given rise to the
need and desire to monitor, update and potentially fix client
applications on a plurality of client devices by server applications
on server systems that are remote from the client devices ....
(Final Act. 5-8.) Appellant, however, contends that:
The combination of Ahuja and McCall fails to teach or
suggest "connecting, by the processing device, with the network
appliance via the secured communication channel of the
identified second port" (emphasis added), as recited by
independent claim 1.
While McCall teaches a client system having a command agent
and a monitoring agent, McCall includes no teachings of using,
for establishing a connection, identifications of ports or values
of any other functionally similar parameters of the
communication channels. In the absence of such teachings or at
least some explanation, McCall's client system having a
command agent and a monitoring agent should not be properly
interpreted as the claimed "connecting, by the processing device,
with the network appliance via the secured communication
channel of the identified second port" (emphasis added).
(Br. 10-11, bolding in original, italics added.) We are not persuaded that
Appellant has shown the Examiner erred. "[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references." See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). As explained by the Examiner, it is the
combination of Ahuja and McCall that teaches the limitation at issue. (Final
Act. 5-8; Ans. 15-16.) Specifically, "Ahuja teaches the use of asymmetric
security in data communications" and McCall teaches a "network appliance
6
Appeal2015-005059
Application 11/998,093
connecting to a monitored server." (Final Act. 8; Ans. 15-16.) Therefore,
the Examiner is relying on Ahuja for the communication issue raised by
Appellant, and as discussed above, it would have been obvious during the
handshaking process to identify a specific port of the second node to
communicate with.
Combination of Ahuja and McCall
The Examiner finds that
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to utilize the teaching of McCall to
the system of Ahuja in order to monitor, update, and potentially fix
client applications on a plurality of client devices by server
applications on server systems that are remote from the client devices.
(Final Act. 10.) Appellant contends that "the Office action supports the
motivation to combine the cited referenced by a mere conclusory statement
[and] further fail[s] to provide 'articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.'" (Br. 12-14.)
We are not persuaded that Appellant has shown that the Examiner has erred.
We find that the Examiner has articulated a reasoning with a rational
underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would combine Low and Adams. (Final Act. 10.) See KSR Int'l
Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415, 418 (2007). We also agree with the
Examiner's further findings that:
It would be obvious to combine both prior arts, [sic] because
there is a need for secure communication/monitoring when using
a remote device/appliance as described by the security levels of
commands in McCall (Paragraph 15). There is motivation to
combine both prior arts [sic] due to Ahuja's teaching of various
security levels in communication (Abstract), while McCall
improves upon Ahuja by teaching a system to monitor and update
7
Appeal2015-005059
Application 11/998,093
applications remotely and securely, where various commands
can be sent at various security levels (Paragraph 3). Thus McCall
improves upon Ahuja by teaching various tasks which can be
accomplished by using various security levels.
(Ans. 16-17.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 such that we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1. Appellant does not make any separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding independent claims 8, and 15 and dependent claims 2-
7, 9-14, and 16-20, but instead relies solely on the arguments with respect
to claim 1. (App. Br. 12-13.) Therefore, for similar reasons as provided for
claim 1, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2-20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8