Ex Parte AMULOTHU et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 9, 201814525339 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/525,339 10/28/2014 87334 7590 IBM END IPLA W (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC 11910 Sendera Ln. Richmond, TX 77407 08/13/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR VENKA TA SIVAN. AMULOTHU 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. SJ0920140090US1 8814 EXAMINER KING,JOHNB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2498 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/13/2018 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): uspto@garglaw.com dpandya@garglaw.com garglaw@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VENKATA SIVAN. AMULOTHU, NITIN J. HURALIKUPPI, ASHISH KAPUR, and VISHAL SHUKLA Appeal2018-000446 Application 14/525,339 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-000446 Application 14/525,339 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-15 and 18-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to end-to-end encryption in a Software Defined Network (SDN). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for end-to-end securing of data communications in a Software Defined Network (SDN), the method comprising: receiving, at a controller of the SDN, first information from a first component of the SDN, the first information comprising an identification of an encryption algorithm from a set of encryption algorithms supported by the first component; detecting, at the controller, a second component becoming available in the SDN; determining, at the controller, that a path is possible in the SDN between the first component and the second component where the first component comprises an originating point of the path and the second component comprises a destination point of the path; preventing, by transmitting a set of policies from the controller to the first component, the first component from using a first subset of the set of encryption algorithms on the path even though the first subset of encryption algorithms is supported at the first component and the second component; and 1 Appellants indicated International Business Machines Corporation is the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2). 2 Appeal2018-000446 Application 14/525,339 causing, by transm1ttmg the set of policies from the controller to the first component, a selection at the first component of a cryptographic operation from a second subset of the set of encryption algorithms, the cryptographic operation being applicable to the path. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Ramanathan US 6,948,060 B 1 Hampel et al. US 2014/0153572 Al (hereinafter "Hampel") Bowen US 9,185,088 Bl La Roche, Jr. et al. US 2015/0358850 Al (hereinafter "La Roche") Morper US 2016/0020946 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Sept. 20, 2005 June 5, 2014 Nov. 10, 2015 Dec. 10, 2015 Jan. 21, 2016 Claims 1-15 and 18-25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. 2 Claims 1, 2, 3, 5-8, 11-13, 15, 18-20, 22, 23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hampel in view of Bowen and further in view of Ramanathan. 2 The Examiner indicates the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 1-15 and 18-25 has been withdrawn. (Ans. 4). 3 Appeal2018-000446 Application 14/525,339 Claims 4, 14, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hampel, Bowen, and Ramanathan in view of La Roche. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hampel, Bowen, and Ramanathan in view of Morper. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103 We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-16), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-14). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain aspects of Appellants' arguments as follows. With respect to independent claims 1, 13, 18, 23, and 25, Appellants do not set forth separate arguments for patentability of each of the independent claims. As a result, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will address Appellants' arguments thereto. When Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of the dependent claims, the claims stand the fall with the claim from which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986), see also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016). With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants contend that: Claim 1 includes the feature of "preventing, by transmitting a set of policies from the controller to the first component, the first component from using a first subset of the 4 Appeal2018-000446 Application 14/525,339 set of encryption algorithms on the path even though the subset of encryption algorithms is supported at the first component and the second component." Examiner asserts that column 5, lines 13-51 and column 6, lines 10-43 of Bowen teaches this feature. (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants further contend: For instance, if Examiner relies on two or more prior art references for an obviousness rejection that do not teach or suggest each and every element of a claimed invention, Examiner must still provide an explanation as to why the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. M.P.E.P. §2141. Furthermore, Examiner "cannot pick and choose among the individual elements of assorted prior art references to recreate the claimed invention." SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corp. 859 F.2d 878, 887 (Fed. Cir., 1988) ( emphasis added). Rather, Examiner must show technical reasons that the skilled artisan, confronted with the same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would select the elements from the cited prior art references for combination in the manner claimed. In re Rouffet, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). However, the combination of the references cited by Examiner does not teach or suggest each and every element of the claimed invention. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness is not established. Examiner acknowledges that Hampel is deficient in teaching or suggesting, "preventing, by transmitting a set of policies from the controller to the first component, the first component from using a first subset of the set of encryption algorithms on the path even though the subset of encryption algorithms is supported at the first component and the second component." To allege a teaching of this feature, Examiner relies only upon Bowen. (App. Br. 12-13). Appellants argue: Bowen recites, in part, that "FIG. 4 includes a source-supported algorithms list 101, an intermediary source-supported algorithms 5 Appeal2018-000446 Application 14/525,339 list 111, and a destination-supported 112" and that "[E]ach list includes and identifies the encryption algorithms supported by each respective component" (Bowen, Column 5, lines 13-19). Column 5, lines 25-27 of Bowen recite "[E]ach of the supported encryption algorithm lists 101, 111, and 112 may indicate an order of preference associated with each of the encryption algorithms." Column 5, lines 45-51 of Bowen recite "[E]ach of the supported encryption algorithm lists 101, 111, and 112 may be generated by, or generated based on information provided by, any or all source 100, intermediary 110 and destination 120" and that "[ A ]dditionally, or alternately, each of the supported encryption lists 101, 111, and 112 may be generated by, or generated based on information provided by, additional services, components or devices with any relevant information that can be used to generate such lists." Column 6, lines 10-26 of Bowen recites, in part, that "a communication request 400" may be issued by source 100 in order to initiate communication with the destination 120", that the "request 400 includes the source- supported algorithms list 101 ", and that "different techniques may be employed to deliver the destination supported algorithms list 112 to intermediary 11 O" such as " 'pulled' by intermediary 110" or" 'pushed' to intermediary 110." Accordingly, the cited portions of Bowen describe a source-supported algorithms list, an intermediary source- supported algorithms list, and a destination-supported algorithm lists that identifies the encryption algorithms supported by each respective component. Bowen further describes that the algorithm lists may indicate an order of preference. However, Bowen appears to have no teaching or suggestion that these algorithm lists can be equated with a set of policies that prevent a first component from using a first subset of a set of encryption algorithms on a path even though the first subset of encryption algorithms is supported at the first component and a second component, much less transmitting a set of policies from a controller of a Software Defined Network (SDN) to the first component that prevents the first component from using a first subset of a set of encryption algorithms on a path even though the first subset of encryption algorithms is supported at the first component and the second component as found in claim 1. 6 Appeal2018-000446 Application 14/525,339 Appellants respectfully submit that Hampel and Ramanathan also fail to teach these features either alone or in combination. (App. Br. 13-14). In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner addresses the language of independent claim 1 and finds: the claims do not recite "a set of policies that prevent a first component from using a first subset of a set of encryption algorithms". The claim merely recites "preventing, by transmitting a set of policies ... the first component from using a first subset of . . . encryption algorithms". The claim does not specifically define that the policy is actually used to perform the preventing step. The claim also does not clearly state as how the policy is used at all and the claim also does not recite that the policy determines which algorithms to use or not to use. The claim merely recites preventing the use of a subset of encryption algorithms by transmitting a set of policies, but whether the policy is actually used to perform the preventing step or not is not clearly recited in the claim. Therefore, the cited prior art of record only needs to teach transmitting a set of policies and preventing the use of a subset of encryption algorithms such that the Examiner will show below how the cited prior art teaches these features. (Ans. 5). We agree with the Examiner that the language of independent claim 1 does not set forth any active method steps that "prevent" "the first component from using a first subset of the set of encryption algorithms on the path even though the first subset of encryption algorithms is supported at the first component and the second component." Additionally, we note that Appellants have not identified any express support in the Specification for "preventing" use of algorithms to further limit or interpret the claimed invention. 7 Appeal2018-000446 Application 14/525,339 The Examiner further details the reliance upon teachings of the Bowen reference relied upon in the rejection and additionally identifies portions of the Hampel and Ramanathan references. (See "Hampel, paragraph 122, and Ramanathan, Figures 2-4 and associated texts such as col. 3 lines 1-17.") (Ans. 8). The Examiner further finds: As shown above, Hampel and Ramanathan, clearly teach transmitting a policy that defines which encryption algorithms and authentication algorithms are to be used. Ramanathan recites "a network policy (NP) is defined, distributed and administered by policy administrator". Therefore, Ramanathan clearly teaches "transmitting a set of policies". Hampel, paragraph 20, also teaches using various protocols/policies to transmit protected data and perform other features such as Quality of Service of traffic flows and VPN s. Therefore, the cited prior art does teach "transmitting a set of policies". (Ans. 9). The Examiner further relies upon the Hampel and Ramanathan references in combination to: teaches sending a policy that instructs the devices on which encryption and authentication algorithms to use, which would also prevent other algorithms from being used. Therefore, the cited prior art does teach the claim limitation in question of "preventing ... the first component from using a first subset of the set of encryption algorithms on the path even though the first subset of encryption algorithms is supported at the first component and the second component". (Ans. 11-12). Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner finds that the scope of the claimed invention is broader than Appellants contend and finds: the claims do not recite "transmitting a set of policies . . . that prevents a first component from using a first subset of a set of encryption algorithms". The claim merely recites "preventing, by transmitting a set of policies . . . the first component from 8 Appeal2018-000446 Application 14/525,339 using a first subset of ... encryption algorithms". The claim does not specifically define that the policy is actually used to perform the preventing. The claim also does not define how the policy is used at all and the claim also does not recite that the policy determines which algorithms to use or not to use. The claim merely recites preventing the use of a subset of encryption algorithms by transmitting a set of policies, but whether the policy is actually used to perform the preventing step or not is not clearly recited in the claim. Therefore, the cited prior art of record only needs to teach transmitting a set of policies and preventing the use of a subset of encryption algorithms. (Ans. 12). The Examiner further finds: Hampel, Figures 1, 3, and abstract and paragraph 122 (as cited above) teaches a "software-defined network" (abstract) that is used to encrypt data transferred between two devices where a controller element transmits a policy to define which encryption algorithm to use to encrypt the transmitted data between the two devices (paragraph 122). (Ans. 13). As a result, the Examiner concludes: Therefore, the combination of references teaches the limitation in question of "preventing, by transmitting a set of policies from the controller to the first component, the first component from using a first subset of the set of encryption algorithms on the path even though the first subset of encryption algorithms is supported at the first component and the second component" where the controller is part of a software defined network (SDN). (Ans. 13) (emphasis added). In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that the Examiner's interpretation of the feature of the "preventing" limitation is unreasonably broad under general claim construction principles and in in view of the Specification and record. (Reply Br. 3--4 ). Appellants further disagree with 9 Appeal2018-000446 Application 14/525,339 the Examiner's interpretation of the portions of the Bowen reference and generally disagree with Examiner's interpretation of the cited portions of the Bowen reference. Appellants contend the cited portions of Bowen describe selecting of a particular algorithm from a list of supported algorithms because it is the most preferred algorithm by the destination or has the lowest average ranking across the intermediary and destination together. However, Appellants respectfully submit that Bowen contains not teaching or suggestion of transmitting a set of policies from a controller of a Software Defined Network (SDN) to a first component that prevents the first component from using a first subset of the set of encryption algorithms on the path even though the subset of encryption algorithms is supported at the first component and a second component. (Reply Br. 6). As a result, Appellants further generally contend that the cited references, alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest each and every feature of claim 1 and the combination of Hampel, Bowen, and Ramanathan fails to make independent claim 1 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (Reply Br. 6). We disagree with the Appellants and find that Appellants individually address the teachings of the Bowen reference, but do not specifically address what the combination of teachings would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention. We find the Examiner additionally relies upon the Hampel and the Ramanathan references for the teaching and suggesting the "preventing" step. We further find that Appellants do not address how the teachings of the Ramanathan reference with regards to the network policy, which stipulates the type of encryption, in combination with the teachings of the Bowen reference would not have taught or suggested preventing certain algorithms from being used based 10 Appeal2018-000446 Application 14/525,339 upon a network policy in a corporation/organization. (See Ramanathan column 1, lines 36-46, description of corporate network policy as it would be combined with column 3 discussion in the Ramanathan reference and in combination with Hampel, paragraph 122). Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because the Examiner relies on the combination of disclosures in the three references-not Bowen alone-to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1. Ans. 4--14; see Final Act. 3-16. "[T]he test for combining references is not what the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, the Examiner discusses all three references with respect to software defined networks, but Appellants primarily discuss the Bowen reference alone. As a result, we find Appellants' arguments do not show error in the Examiner's factual findings or the conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 1. With respect to independent claims 13, 18, 23, and 25, Appellants do not set forth separate arguments for patentability and these claims fall with representative independent claim 1. (App. Br. 14; see Ans. 14). Appellants do not set forth separate arguments for patentability of dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8, 11, 12, 15, 18-20, and 22, and we sustain the rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth with respect to representative independent claim 1. (App. Br. 14). With respect to dependent claims 4, 9, 10, 14, 21, and 24, Appellants do not set forth separate arguments for patentability of these dependent 11 Appeal2018-000446 Application 14/525,339 claims, and we sustain the rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth with respect to representative independent claim 1. (App. Br. 14--15). CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-15 and 18-25 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15 and 18-25 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation