Ex Parte VanHeyningenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 201411927371 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/927,371 10/29/2007 Marc D. VanHeyningen DELL-003COA 5918 28661 7590 04/29/2014 Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP 2440 W. El Camino Real, 6th Floor Mountain View, CA 94040 EXAMINER SHAW, YIN CHEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2439 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/29/2014 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 MARC D. VANHEYNINGEN ____________ Appeal 2011-011298 Application 11/927,371 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1 and 33.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The Amendment After Final filed September 24, 2010, and entered by the Examiner (Oct. 12, 2010), withdrew claims 23-28, 30-32, 34, and 35. The Preliminary Amendment filed January 22, 2008, cancelled claims 2-22 and the Amendment filed December 29, 2009, cancelled claim 29. Appeal 2011-011298 Application 11/927,371 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method for securely transmitting data between two or more computer nodes using an unreliable protocol (Spec. 1:7-8). REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rogaway (US 7,046,802 B2, May 16, 2006) and Vidrascu (US 5,583,940, Dec. 10, 1996). ANALYSIS Appellant contends the Examiner has provided no motivation to combine Rogaway and Vidrascu (see App. Br. 3-5). That is, Appellant asserts, “the motivation proposed by the Examiner fails to provide any reason why Rogaway would be included in the combination” (App. Br. 4). We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (see Ans. 5-9). Particularly, the Examiner finds Rogaway does not expressly disclose the limitation regarding transmitting using an unreliable protocol and relies on Vidrascu for disclosing enciphered/encrypted messages transmitted using an unreliable protocol (UDP protocol) (Ans. 4-5; Vidrascu Abstract ll. 1-14). Thus, the Examiner uses Vidrascu for modifying the teachings of Rogaway to transmit an encrypted message using an unreliable network protocol rather than an encrypted protocol (Ans. 6-7). Appellant merely states there is no motivation to combine, without providing reasoning as to why the two references are not combinable, other than lack of motivation (App. Br. 3). The Examiner, however, provides Appeal 2011-011298 Application 11/927,371 3 detailed reasoning for motivation to combine Rogaway and Vidrascu (Ans. 6-9), which Appellant has not rebutted. Thus, for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1 and 33. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 33 under 35 U.S.C § 103 is 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation