Ex Parte SouilleDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 21, 201612304954 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation