Ex Parte Xie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2017

13935378 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
13/935,378 07/03/2013 Michael Xie FORT-011800 6947
64128 7590 12/26/2017
MICHAEL A DESANCTIS
HAMILTON DESANCTIS & CHA LLP
12640 W. Cedar Drive, Suite 1
LAKEWOOD, CO 80228
EXAMINER
ULLAH, SHARIF E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2017 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):
mdesanctis @hdciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL XIE, WEI DAVID WANG,
and IHAB KHALIL
Appeal 2017-008562
Application 13/935,378
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EVANS, and CATHERINE SHIANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-008562
Application 13/935,378
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
computer networks. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system for implementing application layer security
comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors and
having stored therein:
an application type detection module configured to
receive an application layer packet originated within a
network of an enterprise and determine an application
type with which the application layer packet is
associated;
an application field retrieval module configured to
retrieve one or more information fields from application
layer information contained within the application layer
packet based on the application type, wherein the
retrieved information fields are indicative of an end user
of the enterprise with which the application layer packet
is associated;
an end user identification module configured to
determine the identity of the end user based on the
retrieved information fields;
a security rule identification module configured to
identify one or more applicable security rules based on
the determined application type and the identity of the
end user; and
a security policy implementation module
configured to apply the one or more applicable security
rules to the application layer packet.
2
Appeal 2017-008562
Application 13/935,378
References and Rejection
Claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bartholomay (US 2014/0137188 Al, May 15, 2014) and Targali (US
2013/0298209 Al, Nov. 7, 2013).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of
Bartholomay teach “an application field retrieval module configured to
retrieve one or more information fields from application layer information
contained within the application layer packet based on the application type,
wherein the retrieved information fields are indicative of an end user of the
enterprise with which the application layer packet is associated,” as recited
in independent claim 1 (emphases added).1 See Br. 12—14.
The Examiner initially cites Bartholomay’s paragraphs 133—135 for
teaching the above limitation, but does not specifically map the italicized
limitations. See Final Act. 4. Nor does the Examiner make any specific
finding about the italicized limitations. See Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue, and we agree, Bartholomay’s paragraphs 133—135
do no teach “an application field retrieval module configured to retrieve one
or more information fields from application layer information contained
within the application layer packet based on the application type, wherein
the retrieved information fields are indicative of an end user of the
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal 2017-008562
Application 13/935,378
enterprise with which the application layer packet is associated,” as recited
in claim 1 (emphases added). See Br. 12—14.
In response, the Examiner does not directly address Appellants’
arguments. See Ans. 3. Instead, the Examiner merely finds the cited
Bartholomay’s paragraphs “indicate[] that the data packet inspection results
in application type information being extracted from the application layer
data.” Ans. 3. That finding is insufficient to show the cited Bartholomay’s
paragraphs teach “an application field retrieval module configured to
retrieve one or more information fields from application layer information
contained within the application layer packet based on the application type,
wherein the retrieved information fields are indicative of an end user of the
enterprise with which the application layer packet is associated,” as required
by claim 1 (emphases added).
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claims 8 and 15 recites a claim limitation that is
substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 8 and
15. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 8 and 15.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2—7, 9-14, and 16—20.
4
Appeal 2017-008562
Application 13/935,378
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
REVERSED
5