iBoss, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2022

2020004665 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 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. 15/256,418 09/02/2016 Paul Michael Martini 38097-0077001 1017 20985 7590 04/01/2022 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (SD) P.O. BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER TOLENTINO, RODERICK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2439 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2022 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL MICHAEL MARTINI Appeal 2020-004665 Application 15/256,418 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERSON, 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 to reject claims 1-20, all of the pending claims. Final Act 1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as iboss, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed January 1, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 1, 2020); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 6, 2019) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 12, 2020); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed September 2, 2016). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. Appeal 2020-004665 Application 15/256,418 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to methods and systems for applying network policies to devices based on their current access network involving malware detection for proxy servers. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method executed by one or more processors, the method comprising: identifying, by a monitoring device, a proxy connection request sent from a particular client device to a proxy server over a network, the proxy connection request including a hostname and configured to direct the proxy server to establish communication with a computer identified by the hostname on behalf of the client device, wherein the monitoring device is separate from the client device and the proxy server, and wherein the monitoring device receives the proxy connection request from the network; identifying, by the monitoring device, a domain name system (DNS) response to a DNS request including the hostname from the proxy connection request, wherein the DNS request is sent by the proxy server in response to the proxy connection request from the particular client device, and wherein the monitoring device receives the DNS response from the network; determining, by the monitoring device, that the DNS response is associated with the particular client device based on the DNS response including the hostname from the proxy connection request; and in response to determining that the DNS response is associated with the particular client device, updating, by the monitoring device, DNS usage information for the particular client device based on the identified DNS response. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-004665 Application 15/256,418 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kamthe US 2014/0283062 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Kölhi US 2016/0323409 A1 Nov. 3, 2016 Baccarani US 2016/0344606 A1 Nov. 24, 2016 Gautam US 2017/0374017 A1 Dec. 28, 2017 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kölhi, Kamthe, and Gautam. Final Act. 3-11. Claims 3, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kölhi, Kamthe, Gautam, and Baccarani. Id. at 11-13. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are forfeited.3 Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action and 3 See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Because Google failed to present these claim construction arguments to the Board, Google forfeited both arguments.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”). Appeal 2020-004665 Application 15/256,418 4 the Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address the rejections below. The Examiner rejects claim 1 over Kölhi, Kamthe, and Gautam. Final Act. 3-11. Appellant argues that the teachings of Kölhi and Kamthe in combination with those of Gautam fail to teach explicitly a monitoring device, “wherein the monitoring device is separate from the client device and the proxy server” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds that Gautam expressly teaches a monitoring device, disclosing proxy device 130 deployed at the edge of a network that performs the monitoring devices claimed features. Appellant contends that Gautam’s proxy device 130 is properly interpreted as teaching or suggesting a proxy server, as its functions meet the usage of the term “server” throughout the Specification. Id. at 6-7 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 2, 11, 16, 18). Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that Gautam’s proxy device 130 teaches the claim 1 limitation, “wherein the monitoring device is separate from the client device and the proxy server” based on an unsupported definition of “server.” Id. at 7-8; Final Act. 2-3. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Gautam expressly states, “[t]he communication between the DNS server 150 and the client is facilitated by the proxy device 130” and is shown performing the functions of a proxy server. Gautam ¶ 30; Reply 3-4 (showing Fig. 1). First, we agree with the Examiner that Gautam is not relied upon to teach a “proxy server,” and, instead, Kölhi is relied upon as teaching the proxy server. Ans. 4; see Final Act. 4-5. As the Examiner finds, Gautam discloses a proxy device that is separate from both the client devices and other servers shown in Gautam’s Figure 1. Ans. 4-5; Gautam ¶ 13, Fig. 1 (element 130). Appeal 2020-004665 Application 15/256,418 5 We also agree with the Examiner that Gautam discloses, “Proxy devices, such as firewalls, often use the SNI extension of the connection request message to apply security policies to the connection request message.” Gautam ¶ 10; see Ans. 5-6. Thus, the Examiner argues that Gautam’s proxy device 130 differs from a Proxy server and is analogous to the firewall functions described in Gautam. Id. We also determine that Appellant’s contentions focus on the references separately and ignore that Kölhi is relied on to teach the proxy server. Final Act. 4-5. The Examiner relies on the combination of Kölhi, Kamthe, and Gautam, where Gautam’s firewall features, in combination with the server functions of Kölhi and Kamthe, teach the limitations of claim 1. See Gautam ¶¶ 10, 13; Final Act. 2-7. Indeed, each reference must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“[T]he test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” (citation omitted)). We also note that, in general, making separable that which is integrated is an obvious design choice when there is a reason to make separable. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961). Here the Examiner relies on Kölhi for the proxy server functions and separately on Gautam’s firewall features, in combination with the server functions of Kölhi and Kamthe. For the reasons above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 1 based on the combined teachings of Kölhi, Kamthe, and Gautam. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-20, which are not separately argued with particularity. Appeal 2020-004665 Application 15/256,418 6 CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kölhi, Kamthe, and Gautam; and of claims 3, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kölhi, Kamthe, Gautam, and Baccarani. For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-10, 12-17, 19, 20 103 Kölhi, Kamthe, Gautam 1, 2, 4-10, 12-17, 19, 20 3, 11, 18 103 Kölhi, Kamthe, Gautam, Baccarani 3, 11, 18 Overall Outcome 1-20 TIME PERIOD FOR 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) (2022). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2022). AFFIRMED