Ex Parte Souille

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 21, 2016

12304954 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/304,954 12/15/2008
466 7590
YOUNG & THOMPSON
209 Madison Street
Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22314
01/25/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexandre Souille
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.
0624-1014 9726
EXAMINER
DINH, MINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01125/2016 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):
DocketingDept@young-thompson.com
yandtpair@firs ttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDRE SOUILLE 1
Appeal2014-002472
Application 12/304,954
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON i\.PPEi\L
1 Appellant identifies Olfeo as the real party in interest. (Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-002472
Application 12/304,954
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 21-39 and 41. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Introduction
According to Appellant, "[ t ]he present invention relates to a method
for processing security data of a computer network. It also relates to a
system for processing security data implementing the method according to
the invention." (Spec. 1.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 21, reproduced below with disputed limitation italicized, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
21. A method, executable by a computer server
comprising a CPU, storage, and a network interface in
connection \~1ith a computer net\~1ork comprising a plurality of
users located in said network, for processing security data of the
computer network, the method comprising the following steps:
i) analysing data relating to a content and/or service,
the content and/or service external to said network and
accessed by a user across said computer network (R), said user
located in said network;
ii) based on said analysis of the data relating to the
content and/ or service external to said network, determining
data relating to a behaviour of said user on said network, said
data being internal to said network (R), and composing a
behavioural signature of said user;
2 As noted by the Examiner in the Final Action, claim 40 has been canceled.
(Final Act. 1.)
2
Appeal2014-002472
Application 12/304,954
iii) comparing said behavioural signature with a
reference signature comprising data representing a predefined
behaviour pattern; and
iv) activating a securization action of said network
(R), according to said comparison.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Leppek
Gales
Sakamoto
Chebolu
US 2001/0001156 Al
US 2003/0084323 Al
US 2005/0203881 Al
US 7 ,577 ,995 B2
REJECTIONS
May 10, 2001
May 1, 2003
Sept. 15, 2005
Aug. 18, 2009
Claims 21-23, 25, 27-35, 38, 39, and 41 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sakamoto and Gales. (Final Act.
3-9.)
Claims 24 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sakamoto, Gales and Leppek. (Final Act. 9-10.)
Claims 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sakamoto, Gales, and Chebolu. (Final Act. 10-11.)
ISSUE
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Sakamoto
and Gales teaches or suggests "analysing data relating to a content and/or
service, the content and/or service external to said network and accessed by
a user across said computer network (R), said user located in said network,"
as recited in claim 21.
3
Appeal2014-002472
Application 12/304,954
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections of claims 21-39 and 41
in light of Appellant's arguments the Examiner has erred. 3 We disagree
with Appellant's conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal
is taken (Final Act. 3-11); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2-
3.) We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight
the following for emphasis. 4
A. Claims 21-23, 25, 27-35, 38, 39, and 41
The Examiner finds Sakamoto teaches or suggests all of the
limitations of claim 21, 5 except "Sakamoto does not teach analyzing data
relating to a content and/or service, the content and/or service external to
said network." (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner finds, however, Gales
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 22, 23, 25, 27-35, 38-39, or
41. (Br. 3, 8.) Except for our ultimate decision, the Examiner's rejection of
these claims is not discussed further herein.
4 Only those arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellant did not make in the briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5 The Examiner objects to claim 21 as containing "informalities"-
specifically, ambiguous use of "said data" in portion (ii) of claim 21. (Final
Act. 2.) Although this issue is not before us, and is also not material to the
issues presented on appeal, we note Appellant addresses this issue,
indirectly, in the Appeal Brief by adding qualifiers "first" and "second"
before certain instances of the term "data" when purporting to recite the
limitations of claim 21. (Br. 4.) Claim 21 has not, however, been formally
amended, and we take no position on whether addition of these qualifiers
would cure the informalities noted by the Examiner.
4
Appeal2014-002472
Application 12/304,954
supplies the missing teaching. (Id. (citing ilil 12, 28).) In particular, Gales
teaches:
FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating a method for network
intrusion detection in accordance with an embodiment and of
the present invention. The method begins at step 200, where
the monitor application 40 identifies a network node, such as
one of the nodes 12 or the server 18. At step 202, the monitor
application 40 monitors inbound network communications or
traffic corresponding to the identified node, such as electronic
mail receipt, data or file transfers, or other types of inbound
information transfers. At step 204, the monitor application 40
monitors outbound network communications or traffic
corresponding to the identified node, such as outbound
electronic mail communications, web site access requests, data
or file transfers, or other types of information transfer from the
identified node.
(Gales i-f 28 (emphases added)).
Appellant argues the Examiner's finding is in error because
"[a ]lthough Gales teaches to monitor incoming network traffic and outgoing
network traffic, Gales does not teach determmmg a behavioral signature of a
user located inside a network according to a content/service external to the
network and accessed by the user." (Br. 6 (emphasis added)). We disagree,
for the reasons stated by the Examiner. (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3). We
further note the Examiner's findings are supported by related passages of
Gales, which disclose generating an "activity profile" based on, inter alia,
"web sites visited":
After monitoring the network traffic and usage patterns for the
predetermined time period, the profile application 42 retrieves
the network activity log 52 information and automatically
generates an activity profile for the monitored nodes 12 and/or
server 18 and stores the profile in the database 50 as the activity
profile data 54. The activity profile may be generated based on
the applications accessed and used, the web sites visited, the
5
Appeal2014-002472
Application 12/304,954
quantity of web sites visited, the quantity or addressees of
electronic mail, the identities of third party access to web sites,
or other network usage activities.
(Gales i-f 22 (emphases added).)
Thus, we conclude the Examiner's finding the combination of
Sakamoto and Gales teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 21
is supported by the cited references. We have considered Appellant's
contrary arguments in their entirety (Br. 3-7), but find them unpersuasive.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 21-23, 25, 27-35, 38-39, and 41 over
Sakamoto and Gales.
B. Claims 24, 26, 36, and 37
Appellant does not present separate substantive arguments for the
patentability of claims 24 and 26, which stand rejected over Sakamoto and
Gales; and further in view of Leppek. (Br. 8.) Appellant similarly does not
present separate substantive arguments for the patentability of claims 36 and
37, which stand rejected over Sakamoto and Gales, and further in view of
Chebolu. (Id.) Rather, Appellant argues the Examiner's citation of
additional references as to these claims "does not cure the defects of
Sakamoto and Gales not teaching/suggesting determining a behavioral
signature of a user located inside a network according to a content/service
external to the network and accessed by the user." (Id.) As stated above,
however, we do not find the Examiner's combination of Sakamoto and
Gales to be defective.
In short, for the reasons stated above as to claim 21, we additionally
sustain the rejections of claims 24, 26, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal2014-002472
Application 12/304,954
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claims 21-39 and 41 are affirmed.
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
JRG
7