FORTINET, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2022

2021000460 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2022)

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. 13/705,601 12/05/2012 Xianfeng Deng FOR-301 3716 88268 7590 03/28/2022 Law Office of Dorian Cartwright P.O. Box 6629 San Jose, CA 95150 EXAMINER RECEK, JASON D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2458 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2022 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com uspto@cartwrightesq.com vibrantnet@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XIANFENG DENG and IHAB KHALIL Appeal 2021-000460 Application 13/705,601 Technology Center 2400 Before BETH Z. SHAW, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, 24, and 25, which are all of the claims pending in the application. Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Fortinet, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000460 Application 13/705,601 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claims are directed to “temporarily configuring a network appliance in accordance with externally provided customized configuration settings.” Spec. ¶ 9. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of temporarily configuring a network security appliance of a protected network in accordance with external configuration settings, the method comprising: providing the network security appliance with a plurality of run-time configuration modes, including an internal configuration mode and an external configuration mode between which the network security appliance can switch during operation of the network security appliance; detecting, by the network security appliance, presence of an external storage device inserted within an interface of the network security appliance; responsive to a negative result produced by said detecting, the network security appliance placing itself into the internal configuration mode; responsive to an affirmative result produced by said detecting, the network security applicance placing itself into the external configuration mode; when operating in the internal configuration mode, configuring parameters of the network security appliance to perform security functionality, including one or more of firewall processing, content inspection and antivirus scanning on network traffic received by the network security appliance in accordance with values specified by internal configuration settings by loading and running configuration settings from a memory internal to the network security appliance; and when operating in the external configuration mode: temporarily configuring the parameters of the network security appliance for performing a specific administrative task, Appeal 2021-000460 Application 13/705,601 3 different from the security functionality, during the presence of the external storage device in accordance with values specified by the external configuration settings by loading and running configuration settings from the external storage device and retaining the locally stored configuration settings within the internal memory; and responsive to detecting removal of the external storage device from the interface of the network security appliance, causing the network security appliance to be configured and operated in accordance with the internal configuration settings by automatically reverting to the internal configuration mode. Appeal Br. 32-33 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kline et al. (“Kline”) US 2010/0071066 A1 Mar. 18, 2010 Owen US 2012/0011354 A1 Jan. 12, 2012 Bugenhagen US 2013/0151850 A1 June 13, 2013 Coronado et al. (“Coronado”) US 2013/0179972 A1 July 11, 2013 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 7, and 24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Coronado and Owen. Non-Final Act. 3-6. Claims 3, 8, 12, 14, 15, and 25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Coronado, Owen, and Kline. Non-Final Act. 6-8. Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Coronado, Owen, Kline, and Bugenhagen. Non-Final Act. 8-9. Appeal 2021-000460 Application 13/705,601 4 ANALYSIS With regard to all claims on appeal, Appellant argues that Coronado and Owen are non-analogous art to the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that the field of endeavor of the claimed invention is efficient switching between internal and external configuration modes during operation of the network security device, by temporarily configuring a network security appliance (via an “external configuration mode”) in accordance with externally provided customized configuration settings responsive to detecting the presence of an external storage device to facilitate performance of a task. Id. at 12-13, emphasis omitted. Appellant further argues that the problem addressed by Appellant’s patent application is “inefficiencies and loss of data associated with existing reconfiguration processing when system configuration settings of a network security appliance are temporarily changed during operation of the network security device to allow an administrative process, such as a network audit, to be performed.” Id. at 13, emphasis omitted (citing Spec.¶¶ 7-8). Appellant argues that the field of endeavor of Coronado is a failover system that handles connection errors between an external antivirus server and a storage device, in which no configuration settings of the storage devices 110a-c are changed. See id. at 13-14. Appellant argues that the problem addressed by Coronado is “the exacerbation of typical antivirus scanning issues ‘when the external antivirus server loses contact with the storage device.’” Id. at 16. Appellant argues that Owen’s field of endeavor is “boot loading of operating systems.” Id. at 15 (citing Owen ¶ 3). Appellant further argues that the problem addressed by Owen is “to protect a user’s private information Appeal 2021-000460 Application 13/705,601 5 from being compromised (e.g., by malware residing on the host computer’s hard drive) while using the host computer.” Id. at 16 (citing Owen ¶¶ 13- 14). We are not persuaded that Coronado and Owen are non-analogous art to the claimed invention for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, which we incorporate here by reference. See Ans. 3-5. Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings and explanations in the Answer because Appellant did not file a Reply Brief. With regard to Appellant’s “field of endeavor” analysis, we agree with the Examiner that that Appellant “proffers an unreasonably narrow definition of the ‘field of endeavor’” by incorporating a substantial amount of claim language to define the field of endeavor. Ans. 3 (citing Appeal Br. 13). The Examiner explained that both Coronado and Owen are analogous to the current invention because “they are not only directed to the general field of device configuration, they are also within the narrowly defined field of temporary configuration of a network security device, by switching between internal and external configuration modes.” Ans. 4. The Examiner also found that both references and the application are all classified in CPC G06F, which shows they relate to the field of Computer System, and Digital Data Processing and does not suggest they are non-analogous. Id. at 4-5. With regard to Appellant’s argument regarding the problem addressed by the references and the application, we agree with the Examiner that “the problem faced is how to dynamically and/or efficiently change the configuration of a computer device,” which both Coronado and Owen also address. Id. at 5. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Coronado and Owen are non-analogous art to the current invention. Appeal 2021-000460 Application 13/705,601 6 Appellant next argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Coronado teaches “providing the network security appliance with a plurality of run-time configuration modes, including an internal configuration mode and an external configuration mode between which the network security appliance can switch during operation of the network security appliance,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 20-22. Appellant argues that the portions of Coronado relied upon by the Examiner fail to teach or suggest that storage devices 110 a-c have multiple run-time configuration modes, as claim 1 requires. Id. at 22. Appellant further argues that Coronado merely teaches that control flow is changed based on the connection status between the external antivirus server and the storage device, but does not teach or suggest using different configuration settings to configure parameters of the network security device in the manner required by claim 1. Id. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred because Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the “providing” limitation. The Examiner concluded that the “providing” limitation requires “a plurality of run-time configuration modes, between which the network security appliance can switch during operation.” See Ans. 6. The Examiner found that Coronado teaches “switching, and/or placing the device between internal or external configuration modes in response to the detection of an external device.” Id. (citing Coronado Figs. 4-5 and paragraphs 9, 44, 66- 67). Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings and explanations in the Answer, or shown that the Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed limitation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Appeal 2021-000460 Application 13/705,601 7 For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of Coronado and Owen teach or suggest the disputed “providing” limitation, as recited in claim 1. Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Coronado and Owen teaches or suggests the “when operating in the internal configuration mode” limitations, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 22. In particular, Appellant argues that “as an antivirus service that performs antivirus scanning on data at rest in the form of files stored on a storage device, Coronado cannot properly be said to teach or reasonably suggest performing ‘antivirus scanning on network traffic received by the network security appliance’ as required.” Id. at 23. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found that paragraph 40 of Coronado teaches that the antivirus may scan “any file in storage . . . that is requested by a client before the file is sent to the client.” Ans. 7. The Examiner found that the term “network traffic” is broad enough to include sending a file to a client and thus “Coronado teaches or suggests the claimed feature of performing antivirus scanning on network traffic received by the network security appliance (e.g. the requested file).” Id. Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings and explanations in the Answer, or shown that the Examiner’s interpretation of the scope of the “network traffic” term is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of Coronado and Owen teach or suggest the disputed “when operating in the internal configuration mode” limitations, as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2021-000460 Application 13/705,601 8 Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Coronado and Owen teaches or suggests the “temporarily configuring” limitation, as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 20, 23. In particular, Appellant argues that Owen “shows no contemplation regarding loading of configuration settings from the external storage device as required.” Id. at 26, emphasis omitted. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found that Owen teaches an external device and loading a secure operating system from that external device. Ans. 7 (citing Owen Fig. 2, ¶¶ 13-14). The Examiner interpreted “configuration settings” as broad enough to cover Owen’s operating system because it controls how the device functions. Id. The Examiner further found that Owen teaches the secure operating system is stored in temporary memory, e.g. RAM, while the locally stored configuration is retained. Id. (see Owen ¶¶ 14, 47). Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings and explanations in the Answer, or shown that the Examiner’s interpretation of the scope of the “configuration settings” term is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of Coronado and Owen teach or suggest the disputed “temporarily configuring” limitation, as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as dependent claim 24, grouped therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3, 8, 14, 15, and 25, which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. See Appeal Br. 27. Appeal 2021-000460 Application 13/705,601 9 Turning to dependent claim 7, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Coronado and Owen teaches or suggests “a log level.” Appeal Br. 26. Appellant argues that Owen’s teaching that the secure operating system does not substantially access the HDD so as to avoid potential security threats from malware, such as a key- logger program, is insufficient to teach or suggest “a log level,” as recited in claim 7. Id. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, a log level includes an amount or level of logging. Ans. 8. The Examiner found that Owen teaches that the loaded configuration parameters can suppress a key- logger, and thus the configuration parameters directly affect (i.e. reduce) a level of logging. Id. (citing Owen ¶¶ 14, 23). Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings and explanations in the Answer, or shown that the Examiner’s interpretation of the scope of the “a log level” term is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of Coronado and Owen teach or suggest the disputed “a log level” limitation, as recited in claim 7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 7. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 12, which Appellant argues is patentable for the same reasons as claim 7. See Appeal Br. 27. With regard to dependent claims 4 and 9, Appellant first argues that Bugenhagen is not analogous art to the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 28. Appellant argues that Bugenhagen’s field of endeavor is “a tool to provide an online file locker system for automatic upload and synchronization of Appeal 2021-000460 Application 13/705,601 10 data from a USB drive to a data server.” Id. (citing Bugenhagen Abstract, ¶ 1). Appellant further argues that Bugenhagen purports to address problems users have relating to uploading files to a website. Id. (citing Bugenhagen at ¶¶ 2-3). We are not persuaded that Bugenhagen is non-analogous art to the claimed invention of claim 4. As the Examiner pointed out, both Bugenhagen and the application are classified in the same CPC main group - G06F 15. See Ans. 9. The Examiner also found that, even if Bugenhagen and the claimed invention are not in the same field of endeavor, the problem addressed in claim 4 is regarding erasing data, not the synchronization of files as suggested by Appellant. Id. (citing Appeal Br. 28-29). Because the Examiner found that Bugenhagen solves the problem of how to delete or remove unwanted data after a device is removed, the Examiner found that Bugenhagen is reasonably pertinent because it solves the problem faced by the inventor of erasing data. Id. Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings and explanations in the Answer. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Bugenhagen is non- analogous art to the claimed invention. Further with regard to claims 4 and 9, Appellant argues that the cited portions of Bugenhagen, Coronado, Owen, and Kline do not teach or suggest “erasing from a memory of the network security appliance data collected during the predetermined auditing function.” Appeal Br. 29, emphasis omitted. Appellant argues that Bugenhagen teaches that files are deleted from the server when a corresponding file is deleted from the USB device or when the USB device is removed. Id. Thus, according to Appellant, Bugenhagen does not teach, reasonably suggest, or contemplate erasing data other than that which was originally uploaded from the USB device. Id. Appeal 2021-000460 Application 13/705,601 11 Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive at least because Appellant attacks Bugenhagen individually, even though the Examiner relied on the combined teachings of Coronado, Owen, Kline, and Bugenhagen to teach or suggest the disputed “erasing from a memory” limitation, as recited in claim 4. See Ans. 11-13. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner found that Kline teaches “audit processing” as recited in claim 3, from which claim 4 depends. See Ans. 9 (citing Non-Final Act. 6-7). The Examiner relied on Bugenhagen merely for teaching erasing data upon detecting the disconnection of an external device. Id. at 9-10 (citing Bugenhagen ¶ 64). Because Appellant has not addressed persuasively what the combined teachings of Coronado, Owen, Kline, and Bugenhagen would have suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the Examiner’s rejection. See Non-Final Act. 8-9. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Coronado, Owen, Kline, and Bugenhagen teaches or suggests the disputed “erasing from a memory” limitation, as recited in claim 4 and similarly recited in claim 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4 and 9. Appeal 2021-000460 Application 13/705,601 12 CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, 24, and 25 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7, 24 103(a) Coronado, Owen 1, 7, 24 3, 8, 12, 14, 15, 25 103(a) Coronado, Owen, Kline 3, 8, 12, 14, 15, 25 4, 9 103(a) Coronado, Owen, Kline, Bugenhagen 4, 9 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, 24, 25 RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED