Ex Parte Scolari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13723484 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
13/723,484 12/21/2012 Ana Paula Salengue Scolari 83107505 5718
22879
HP Tnr
7590 03/01/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
EDWARDS, LINGLAN E
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANA PAULA SALENGUE SCOLARI, ANDRE LOPES,
SANDRO RAFAELI, MARCIO FIGUEIRA, and IURI FIEDORUK1
Appeal 2016-008108
Application 13/723,484
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, DAVID J. CUTITTAII, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—5, 7—11, 13—17, and 19—21, all pending claims of the
application.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P.. See Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 6, 12, and 18 are canceled. See Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-008108
Application 13/723,484
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the application relates to a technique to
secure communications through an unsecure socket using a socket
application programming interface to access a plurality of data structures
containing data associated with inter process communication. Spec. 18.3
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is representative and is
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized:
1. A system comprising:
at least one processor;
a non-transitory computer readable memory comprising a
network socket application programming interface;
a plurality of data structures comprising data associated with
network socket connections; and
a first executable code which, when executed by the at least one
processor causes the at least one processor to run a first process
to perform operations comprising:
from a second process associated with a second executable code,
receiving a request to communicate with the first process via an
unsecure network socket;
using the network socket application programming interface,
searching the plurality of data structures for a file location path
of the second executable code\
3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed
December 21, 2012 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”)
mailed September 24, 2015; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
February 22, 2016; (4) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. ”) mailed June 20,
2016; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 16, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-008108
Application 13/723,484
based on the file location path, determining whether the second
executable code comprises a digital signature generated by a
trustworthy source; and
based on a determination that the second executable code
comprises a digital signature generated by a trustworthy source,
permitting the second process to communicate with the first
process via the unsecure network socket,
wherein the unsecure network socket is a socket that is not in
accordance with a security protocol.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims
includes:
Novack et al. (“Novack”) US 2006/0080527 A1 Apr. 13, 2006
Zill et al. (“Zill”) US 2009/0210929 Al Aug. 20, 2009
Mocanu US 2013/0227668 Al Aug. 29,2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—5, 7—11, and 13—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Novack and Mocanu. Final Act. 4—7.
Claims 19—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Novack, Mocanu, and Zill. Final Act. 7—8.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and
issues raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
3
Appeal 2016-008108
Application 13/723,484
ISSUES
Appellants’ arguments present the following issues:
1. Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Novack
and Mocanu teaches or suggests “using the network socket application
programming interface, searching the plurality of data structures for a file
location path of the second executable code,” as recited in claim 1 ?
2. Does the Examiner err in concluding it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings and suggestions of Novack and Mocanu in
the manner recited in claim 1?
DISCUSSION
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding Mocanu teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1 because “in Mocanu, the client
provider (server) does not have access to the file path of the executable file
associated with the client process (client device). In Mocanu, the file
location path of the executable file cannot be searched, but rather has to be
requested from the operating system.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants contend
“the Office Action does not articulate any suggestion, motivation or
disclosure in the two references for an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine
Novack . . . with Mocanu.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellants further contend
“there would [be] no reasonable expectation of success in combining the two
references to arrive at the claimed invention.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Instead, we agree
with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of fact and explanations
with respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 1, as found in the rejection
(Final Act.5—6) and in the Answer (Ans. 3—7). We also find the Examiner
4
Appeal 2016-008108
Application 13/723,484
has articulated a reason for the proposed combination based on rational
underpinnings. Final Act. 6.
In their reply, Appellants argue the “Examiner ignores the fact that
Claim 1 recites a first process that performs a search function and a second
process that performs a request function, and alleges that Mocanu discloses
Claim 1, even though Mocanu collapses both the search and request
functions into one process, namely the credential provider.” Reply Br. 4.
Thus, according to Appellants, Mocanu differs from claim 1 because
Mocanu’s “credential provider performs both the request and search
functions” and so the “Examiner’s reasoning employs a multistep inference
that shoehorns the term ‘search’ into the term ‘request’ in violation of the
Inherency Rule.” Reply Brief 4—5.
We find this argument unpersuasive, noting that the Examiner relies
on Novack to teach or suggest “receiving a request to communicate” and on
Mocanu to teach or suggest “searching the plurality of data structures.”
Final Act. 4—5. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). This also obviates Appellants’
inherency argument, because the Examiner does not rely on inherency but
instead relies on Novack to teach “receiving a request,” as claimed. Final
Act. 4—5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claim 1, and claims 2—5, 7—11, 13—17, and 19—21, which Appellants argue
are patentable for similar reasons. Appeal Br. 8—12.
5
Appeal 2016-008108
Application 13/723,484
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—11, 13—17,
and 19-21 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
6