Ex Parte Strub et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2017

11324648 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 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.
11/324,648 01/03/2006 Lyle Strub ALC 3982 7611
76614 7590 02/24/2017
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
ALMEIDA, DEVIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2017 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):
mail@krameramado.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LYLE STRUB, ADRIAN GRAH, and BASHAR SAID BOU-DIAB
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
Technology Center 2400
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and BRYAN F. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4—13, and 16—28.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART the Examiner’s rejection.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for monitoring traffic in
communication networks for the detection of malicious traffic. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of monitoring data traffic in a communication network,
comprising:
1 Claims 3, 14, and 15 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
receiving data traffic at a router connected to said
communication network;
monitoring, at said router, a flow of said received data traffic at
a predetermined point on a flow path carrying said flow of data traffic;
wherein said monitoring comprises a single stage monitoring
process, wherein said single stage monitoring process is performed
using exclusively one of a plurality of different monitoring criteria,
including a first monitoring criteria and a second monitoring criteria,
such that data traffic that is subject to monitoring at said
predetermined point is only monitored according to one of said
monitoring criteria;
said monitoring further including monitoring said flow of data
traffic at said predetermined point on said flow path according to said
first monitoring criteria;
based on information contained in the data traffic monitored
according to the first criteria, determining whether data in the traffic is
indicative of a malicious threat to one or more resources connected to
said communication network, and only if said determining step
determines that data in said traffic is indicative of a malicious threat,
changing the monitoring criteria in said single stage monitoring
process from the first monitoring criteria to the second monitoring
criteria; and
monitoring subsequently received data traffic at said
predetermined point along said flow path according to said second
monitoring criteria, instead of said first monitoring criteria.
REFERENCES
Cantrell
Munson
Piesco
Portolani
US 2004/0030776 A1
US 2004/0143756 A1
US 2006/0010493 A1
US 2006/0095968 A1
Feb. 12, 2004
July 22, 2004
Jan. 12, 2006
May 4, 2006
2
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 4—6,2 10-13, 16—24,3 and 26—284 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Portolani and Piesco.
Final Act. 3-6 and 9-14.
Claims 7, 8, 9, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Portolani, Piesco, and Cantrell. Final Act. 6
and 12.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Portolani and Piesco
teaches or suggests:
(a) changing the monitoring criteria in said single stage
monitoring process from the first monitoring criteria to the
second monitoring criteria only if said determining step
2 On page 3 of the Final Rejection, the Examiner correctly included claims 5 and 6
in the statement of the rejection as being unpatentable over the combination of
Portolani and Piesco. In the body of the Examiner’s rejection, the Examiner
indicated that, in addition to Portolani and Piesco, Munson was being used to reject
claim 4 and, thereby, claims 5 and 6. Final Act. 6. However, Munson was not
relied upon to teach any of the limitations of claims 4-6. Final Act. 6. We find
this to be harmless error and note it here.
3 On page 3 of the Final Rejection, the Examiner correctly included claims 21 and
22 in the statement of the rejection as being unpatentable over the combination of
Portolani and Piesco. In the body of the Examiner’s rejection, the Examiner
indicated Cantrell instead of Piesco was used to reject claims 16 and 17 and,
thereby, claims 21, and 22. Final Act. 12. However, Cantrell was not relied upon
to teach any of the limitation of claims 16, 17, 21, or 22. Final Act. 10—13. We
see this as harmless error and note it here.
4 On page 3 of the Final Rejection, the Examiner included claims 7, 8, 9, and 25 in
the statement of rejection as being unpatentable over Portolani and Piesco.
However, in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 (and thereby, dependent claims 8,
9, and 25), the Examiner uses Portolani, Piesco, and Cantrell. Final Act. 3—7 and
14. We find this to be harmless error and indicate the appropriate headings here.
3
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
determines that data in said traffic is indicative of a malicious
threat, or monitoring subsequently received data traffic at said
predetermined point along said flow path according to said
second monitoring criteria, instead of said first monitoring
criteria, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12
and 16;
(b) the first monitoring criteria includes a first rate at which
received data traffic at said predetermined point is sampled to
produce said information, and said second monitoring criteria
includes a second rate at which received data at said
predetermined point is sampled, and said second sampling rate
is higher than said first sampling rate, as recited in claim 4 and
similarly recited in claims 20 and 24;
(c) identifying a parameter associated with data in said traffic that is
indicative of a malicious threat, and wherein said monitoring
subsequently received data according to said second monitoring
criteria comprises controlling selectivity of data in said traffic for
monitoring, based on said parameter, as recited in claim 5;
(d) the monitor comprises a sampler for sampling the data traffic, and
that the sampler is capable of being configured to sample the data
traffic according to a plurality of different sampling criteria, as
recited in claim 21;
(e) the first monitoring criteria includes collecting information that
may be associated with a plurality of different malicious
threats, and that the determining step comprises determining if
the collected information is indicative of a particular one or
particular ones of the plurality of different malicious threats,
and if it is determined that the collected information is
indicative of a particular one or ones of the plurality of
different threats, the second monitoring criteria comprises
restricting collection of the information to information
associated with the particular one or ones of the plurality of
different threats, as recited in claim 23;
4
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
(f) the second monitoring criteria isolates characteristics of the
malicious threat, as recited in claim 26;
(g) if said module determines that data in said data traffic is indicative of
a malicious threat, then said module changes state to reflect said
malicious threat, wherein said second monitoring criteria isolates
characteristics of said malicious threat, as recited in claim 27; and
(h) the monitoring criteria isolates characteristics of the malicious threat,
as recited in claim 28?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Portolani, Piesco,
and Cantrell teaches or suggests:
(a) determining from information obtained from monitoring according to
said second monitoring criteria, whether data in said received traffic
is indicative of a malicious threat, as recited in claim 7;
(b) only, if it is determined from information monitored according to said
second monitoring criteria, that is data indicative of a malicious
threat, monitoring subsequently received data at said predetermined
point according to a third monitoring criteria, different from said first
and second monitoring criteria, as recited in claim 8;
(c) the second and third monitoring criteria comprise second and third
rates of sampling the received data, respectively, wherein the third
sampling rate is higher than the second sampling rate, as recited in
claim 9; and
(d) wherein said second monitoring criteria includes collecting
information indicative of one or more of a plurality of different
threats, and said third monitoring criteria comprises collecting more
information relating to said one or more different threats than is
collected using said second monitoring criteria, as recited in claim
25?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 12, and 16
Appellants contend that the combination of Portolani and Piesco fails to
teach
5
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
based on information contained in the data traffic monitored
according to the first criteria, determining whether data in the traffic is
indicative of a malicious threat to one or more resources connected to
said communication network, and only if said determining step
determines that data in said traffic is indicative of a malicious threat,
changing the monitoring criteria in said single stage monitoring
process from the first monitoring criteria to the second monitoring
criteria; and monitoring subsequently received data traffic at said
predetermined point along said flow path according to said second
monitoring criteria, instead of said first monitoring criteria,
as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12 and 16. Br. 8—
13. Appellants argue that Piesco discloses various INFOCON security levels that
reflect the severity of an attack on a computer network and define particular
protective actions to take in response, but do not have any relevance to monitoring
criteria. Br. 10-11 (citing Piesco 17—28). We disagree with Appellants.
The Examiner finds that Piesco teaches changing the monitoring criteria in a
single stage monitoring process from the first monitoring criteria to the second
monitoring criteria by disclosing an INFOCON NORMAL level where a subset of
attack signatures are used and an elevated INFOCON ALPHA level where all
attack signatures are turned on for use. Ans. 2 (citing Piesco 121). The Examiner
interprets “first monitoring criteria” as monitoring where not all of the attack
signatures have been turned on and “second monitoring criteria” as monitoring
where all attack signatures have been turned on. Id. Hence, the Examiner finds
that the adding of additional attack signatures represents a different or second
monitoring criteria because monitoring would be performed for a larger set of
attacks. Id. We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation and find that Piesco
teaches changing the monitoring criteria in a single stage monitoring process from
the first monitoring criteria to the second monitoring criteria because the
INFOCON NORMAL state monitors a subset of attack signatures while the
6
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
ALPHA state applies a second monitoring criteria different from the NORMAL
state where all attack signatures are being monitored. Piesco 121.
Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 12, and 16. The rejections of claims 2, 10, 11—13, and 17—19 dependent
therefrom, are not separately argued and are accordingly also sustained.
Claims 4, 20, and 24
Appellants contend that the combination of Portolani and Piesco fails to
teach “the first monitoring criteria includes a first rate at which received data
traffic at said predetermined point is sampled to produce said information, and said
second monitoring criteria includes a second rate at which received data at said
predetermined point is sampled, and said second sampling rate is higher than said
first sampling rate,” as recited in claim 4 and similarly recited in claims 20 and 24.
Br. 14, 21, and 23—24. Appellants argue that Piesco discloses various INFOCON
security levels that reflect the frequency of an attack during a 24 hour period, but
Piesco is silent as to the sampling rate of data traffic. Br. 14, 23, and 23—24 (citing
Piesco 17—28). We agree with Appellants.
The Examiner interprets Piesco’s disclosure of applying additional attack
signatures and hardening of firewall rules as disclosing different rates of sampling
because the incoming data traffic is being applied to additional mles or filters.
Ans. 2—3 (citing Piesco H 18, 21—23, and 25). However, the portions of Piesco
cited by the Examiner do not describe any increase in sampling, but instead only
disclose applying the same traffic data to an increased number of signatures or
filters. Piesco is silent as to changing sampling rates when different INFOCON
states are reached.
Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 4, 20, and 24.
7
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
Claims 5 and 6
Appellants contend that the combination of Portolani and Piesco fails to
teach “identifying a parameter associated with data in said traffic that is indicative
of a malicious threat, and wherein said monitoring subsequently received data
according to said second monitoring criteria comprises controlling selectivity of
data in said traffic for monitoring, based on said parameter,” as recited in claim 5.
Br. 15. Claim 6 is dependent upon claim 5.
The Examiner finds that Portolani’s disclosure of routing particular types of
data to a particular intrusion detection system meets the claim element of
“identifying a parameter associated with data in said traffic that is indicative of a
malicious threat, and wherein said monitoring subsequently received data
according to said second monitoring criteria comprises controlling selectivity of
data in said traffic for monitoring, based on said parameter.” Ans. 3 (citing
Portolani H 21, 22, and 29). The Examiner interprets the type of data as the
claimed parameter where the monitoring of each type of data is controlled
selectively by sending a particular data type to a particular monitoring device. Id.
Appellants argue that Portolani’s disclosure of routing data traffic to be monitored
based on the type of data traffic does not teach the use a parameter that was
determined to be indicative of a malicious threat in subsequent monitoring to
control selectivity of the data for monitoring. Br. 15.
We agree with Appellants. Portolani discloses several parameters for
controlling selectivity of data for monitoring by directing traffic to a particular
intrusion device based on VLAN identification, subnet, or type of traffic. Portolani
1121, 22, and 29; see Br. 15—16. Portolani’s disclosure does not meet the express
requirements of claim 5 because the parameters are not based upon indications of a
malicious threat, but are only based upon the type of data traffic. Accordingly, the
8
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
Examiner has not established, nor do we find, that the cited portions of Portolani
teach identifying a parameter that is indicative of a malicious threat and then using
that parameter to control selectivity of data in subsequent monitoring according to
a second monitoring criteria.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 5 or claim 6 which is dependent upon claim 5.
Claim 7
Claim 7 was rejected as obvious over Portolani as modified by Piesco and
further refers to Cantrell. The Examiner finds that Cantrell teaches “performing
said monitoring according to said second criteria” and Piesco further teaches
“determining from information obtained from monitoring according to said second
criteria, whether data in said received traffic is indicative of a malicious threat.”
Final. Act. 6 (citing Cantrell 16 and Piesco Tflf 16—28). Appellants do not dispute
the Examiner’s findings that the references teach the claimed features and only
argue that Cantrell discloses a multi-level packet screening method that would
teach away from the single stage monitoring method set forth in claim 7. Br. 18—
19. We disagree with Appellants.
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1995, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Teaching an alternative or
equivalent method, however, does not teach away from the use of a claimed
method. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438 (CCPA 1965).
Appellants do not point to an explicit disclosure within Cantrell that acts to
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of a single stage monitoring
9
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
process, but have instead asserted that the combination of Portolani with Cantrell
would add further complexity. Br. 18—19. However, the mere addition of
complexity, absent evidence that such complexity suggests the combination would
have been unlikely to be productive of the result sought by Appellants (see Gurley,
27 F.3d at 553), would not rise to the level of teaching away absent a clear
statement discouraging or criticizing the modification. Therefore, Appellants have
not shown that Cantrell teaches away from the claimed invention.
Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 7.
Claims 8 and 25
Appellants contend that the combination of Portolani and Piesco fails to
teach “only, if it is determined from information monitored according to said
second monitoring criteria, that said data is indicative of a malicious threat,
monitoring subsequently received data at said predetermined point according to a
third monitoring criteria, different from said first and second monitoring criteria,”
as recited by claim 8. Br. 19.
Initially, we note that claim 8 sets forth conditional claim elements in that
the “monitoring subsequently received data . . . according to a third monitoring
criteria” occurs only “if it is determined from information monitored according to
said second monitoring criteria, that said data is indicative of a malicious threat.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8, we conclude the step of
monitoring subsequently received data, may never occur. Ex parte Schulhauser,
Appeal No. 2013-007847, 2016 BL 173053, slip op at 9, available at https://www.
uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ex%20parte%20Schulhauser%202016_04_
28.pdf (PTAB, April 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding “The Examiner did not
need to present evidence of the obviousness of the remaining method steps of
10
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim.”) Applying the precedential guidance of Schulhauser,
the Examiner is not required to provide evidence of the obviousness of the claimed
method step of subsequent monitoring when, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard, the step is not required to be performed (i.e., when the step
is optional given the broadest reasonable scenario).
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed to the subsequent monitoring
using a third monitoring criteria are unavailing in view of the broadest reasonable
scenario described above. Appellants’ arguments directed to the determining step
are also unavailing. Br. 19. Appellants argue that “there is no disclosure in Piesco
of first, second and third monitoring criteria used to monitor incoming data
traffic.” Id. However, as noted supra, in the analysis of claims 1, 12, and 16, we
hold that Piesco discloses first and second monitoring criteria and teaches
“determin[ing] from information monitored according to said second monitoring
criteria, that said data is indicative of a malicious threat” by disclosing a second
monitoring criteria in the form of the activation of all attack signatures that would
identify whether data is indicative of a malicious threat. Piesco 121.
Appellants further contend that the combination of Portolani and Piesco fails
to teach “said third monitoring criteria comprises collecting more information
relating to said one or more different threats than is collected using said second
monitoring criteria,” as recited by claim 25. Br. 24. Claim 25 depends from claim
8 and further defines the third monitoring criteria recited in claim 8. For the
reasons stated supra, the Examiner is not required to provide evidence of the
obviousness of the claimed third monitoring criteria. Accordingly, Appellants’
arguments directed to the third monitoring criteria are unavailing.
11
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 8 and 25.
Claim 9
Appellants contend that the combination of Portolani and Piesco fails to
teach “said second and third monitoring criteria comprise second and third rates of
sampling said received data, respectively, wherein said third sampling rate is
higher than said second sampling rate,” as recited in claim 9. Br. 20. Appellants
argue that Piesco discloses various rNFOCON security levels that reflect the
frequency of an attack during a 24 hour period, but Piesco is silent as to the
sampling rate of data traffic. Br. 20 (citing Piesco 29-33). We agree with
Appellants.
We first note that as described above, the broadest reasonable interpretation
of claim 9’s parent claim 8 does not include the claimed third monitoring level
because the step of “monitoring subsequently received data . . . according to a third
monitoring criteria” may not occur. Hence, we consider only the Appellants’
arguments directed to the sampling rate of the second monitoring criteria, which is
claimed as being lower than a third monitoring sampling rate (even though, as
claimed, actual monitoring at the third monitoring sampling rate need not be
performed). In a similar manner to that described above in the analysis of claim 4,
the Examiner interprets Piesco’s disclosure of applying additional attack signatures
and hardening of firewall rules as disclosing different rates of sampling because
the incoming data traffic is being applied to additional rules or filters. Ans. 5
(citing Piesco 17—28). However, the portions of Piesco cited by the Examiner
do not describe any increase in sampling, but instead only disclose applying the
same traffic data to an increased number of signatures or filters. Piesco is silent as
to changing sampling rates when different INFOCON levels are reached.
12
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 9.
Claims 21 and 22
Appellants contend that the combination of Portolani, Cantrell, and Piesco
fails to teach the “monitor comprises a sampler for sampling the data traffic, and
that the sampler is capable of being configured to sample the data traffic according
to a plurality of different sampling criteria,” as recited in claim 21. Br. 21—22.
Claim 22 is dependent upon claim 21.
Appellants note that while Cantrell is cited, the Examiner does not identify
any particular portion of Cantrell as teaching the limitations of claim 21 and argue
that Cantrell discloses a multi-stage filtering process where the same traffic is
subjected to multiple stages of inspection without any disclosure of different types
of sampling criteria. Br. 22. Further, Appellants argue that Piesco discloses
various INFOCON security levels that reflect the frequency of an attack during a
24 hour period, but is silent as to different types of sampling criteria. Br. 21—22
(citing Piesco Tflf 29-33). We agree with Appellants.
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner found that Piesco’s disclosure of the
INFOCON CHARFIE level teaches the claimed sampler being configured to
sample the data traffic according to a plurality of different sampling criteria. Final
Act. 12 (citing Piesco 29-33). However, the portions of Piesco cited by the
Examiner do not describe a sampler or the applying of different sampling criteria,
but instead only disclose response measures for an imminent information warfare
attack such as upgrading workstation security, disconnecting web servers, and
disabling accounts. Piesco Tflf 29-33. Piesco is silent as to the use of a sampler or
different sampling criteria.
13
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
claim 21 and claim 22 which is dependent therefrom.
Claim 23
Appellants contend that the combination of Portolani and Piesco fails to
teach
said determining step comprises determining if the collected
information is indicative of a particular one or particular ones of said
plurality of different malicious threats, and if it is determined that the
collected information is indicative of a particular one or ones of said
plurality of different threats, said second monitoring criteria
comprises restricting collection of said information to information
associated with the particular one or ones of said plurality of different
threats,
as recited in claim 23. Br. 23. Appellants specifically assert that Piesco fails to
teach the claimed restricting collection of said information to information
associated with a particular one or ones of said plurality of different threats. Id.
Similar to the discussion above regarding claim 8, we note that claim 23 sets
forth conditional claim elements in that the “restricting collection of said
information” occurs only if “if it is determined that the collected information is
indicative of a particular one or ones of said plurality of different threats.”
Applying the precedential guidance set forth by Schulhauser, we conclude that
under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 23, the step of restricting
collection of information may never occur. Schulhauser, supra at 9. Accordingly,
the Examiner is not required to provide evidence of the obviousness of the claimed
subsequent restricting because under the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard it is not required to be performed.
14
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed to the restricting collection of
information are unavailing in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation
described above. Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 23.
Claims 26—28
Appellants contend that the combination of Portolani and Piesco fails to
teach “said second monitoring criteria isolates characteristics of said malicious
threat,” as recited in claim 26 and similarly recited in claims 27 and 28. Br. 25—26.
Appellants argue that Piesco discloses various INFOCON security levels that
reflect the severity or an attack on a computer network and define particular
protective actions to take in response, but none of the responses disclose isolating
characteristics of a particular malicious threat. Br. 25—26 (citing Piesco Tflf 17—28).
We agree with Appellants.
The Final Rejection cited portions of Piesco describing the INFOCON
NORMAF and INFOCON AFPHA threat levels. Final Act. 14 (citing Piesco
17—28). As noted above in the discussion of claim 1, we found that Piesco
discloses a second monitoring criteria by disclosing an elevated INFOCON
AFPHA level where all attack signatures are turned on for use. Piesco’s
INFOCON AFPHA level (second monitoring criteria) would identify
characteristics of a malicious threat; however, claim 26 requires isolating
characteristics of said malicious threat which refers to the malicious threat
identified by the first monitoring criteria of claim 1. The Examiner has not
established, nor do we find that Piesco discloses a second monitoring criteria that
isolates characteristics of a malicious threat identified by a first monitoring criteria,
but instead discloses a second monitoring criteria that ensure that all attack
signatures are in use.
15
Appeal 2015-004750
Application 11/324,648
Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 26—28.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Portolani and
Piesco teaches or suggests the features recited in claims 1, 12, 16, and 23.
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Portolani and Piesco
teaches the features recited in claims 4—6, 20-22, 24, and 26—28.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Portolani,
Piesco, and Cantrell teaches the features recited in claims 7, 8, and 25.
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Portolani, Piesco, and
Cantrell teaches the features recited in claim 9.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 16, 23, and 25 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4—6, 9, 20—22, 24, and 26—28 is
reversed.
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-IN-PART
16