Ex Parte Wakumoto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

13260170 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/260,170 09/23/2011 Shaun Kazuo Wakumoto
56436 7590 03/01/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82854049 3442
EXAMINER
MOOR THY, ARA VIND K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAUN KAZUO W AKUMOTO
Appeal2014-003524
Application 13/260,170
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, 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 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-003524
Application 13/260, 170
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to rate limiting after detecting an
infected host, allowing the infected host to utilize a reduced amount of
bandwidth (Spec. i-f 12).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for traffic control of a network device in a
network, the method comprising:
determining, by the network device, potentially malicious
behavior by a host device in the network;
reducing a permissible rate of traffic from the host device
through a port of the network device in response to determining
the potentially malicious behavior;
measuring a rate of traffic through the port of the
network device;
comparing the measured traffic rate with a threshold rate;
and
adjusting the permissible rate of traffic based on the
comparison
REFERENCE and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Jonathan Chao (US 2005/0111367 Al)
(hereinafter "Chao"). 1
ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts the Examiner erred in finding Chao discloses the
claim steps of reducing a permissible rate of traffic and adjusting the
1 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 3-5, 10, 11,
and 17-20 (Ans. 3). Thus, only claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 12-16 are before us.
2
Appeal2014-003524
Application 13/260, 170
permissible rate of traffic based on a comparison of the measured traffic rate
with a threshold rate (App. Br. 6-10).
The Examiner finds, however, Chao discloses "a load shedding
algorithm that sets a value for the packet-discarding percentage" and
suspicious packets are discarded to maintain the load at an acceptable level
(Ans. 4; Chao i-fi-f 100-104). The Examiner also finds Chao's scorebooks
compare a traffic profile with an aggregated suspicious traffic profile and
generate an attribute score book used to reduce the amount of information
sent across the network (Ans. 5; Chao i176). Appellant did not address these
compelling findings in the Reply Brief. Further, Appellant's Specification
states the rate of traffic is "i.e., bandwidth utilization rate" (Spec. i-f29) and
"For example, if the permissible traffic rate (which has been previously
reduced) is at 2% maximum utilization, the high threshold may be set for a
window of 1.75o/o-2%" (Spec. i131). Therefore, in light of the above, the
Examiner has provided persuasive evidence that Chao meets the contested
limitations.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 12-
16 as anticipated by Chao.
With respect to separately argued claims 6 and 7, claim 6 recites
"wherein adjusting the reduced rate of traffic comprises decreasing the
permissible rate of traffic" and claim 7 recites "wherein adjusting the
reduced rate of traffic comprises increasing the permissible rate of traffic"
by a configurable amount if the measured traffic rate satisfies the threshold
rate (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that Chao discloses the
features of these claims (Ans. 5; Chao i-fi-180, 76, 75, 85-86 and 33). Thus,
we also sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 7.
3
Appeal2014-003524
Application 13/260, 170
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 12-16 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4