Ex Parte Agarwal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2014

11776721 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANKIT AGARWAL, NICK BASTIN,
PRADEEP K. SINGH, and
SETH MARTIN

____________

Appeal 2012-005903
Application 11/776,721
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN A. EVANS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–35 as anticipated.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.3

1 The Real Party in Interest is OPNET Technologies, Inc.
2 App. Br. 6.
3 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed July 28, 2011 (“App.
Br.”); Reply Brief filed February 27, 2012 (“Reply Br.”); and the
Appeal 2012-005903
Application 11/776,721

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to assessing network and device compliance with
transit policies, also referred to as “security policies.” See Abstract.
Claims 1, 16, and 31 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is
reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a processing machine, a plurality of transit
policies, each policy indicating whether a given service is to be
allowed for two or more device groups of a network, a device
group including one or more devices of the network,
determining, by the processing machine, a plurality of
routes among the device groups in the network,
identifying, by the processing machine, interface check
objects at each interface along each of the routes,
comparing, by the processing machine, configuration
settings at each interface check object to a corresponding transit
policy of the plurality of transit policies, and
identifying, by the processing machine, violations of the
transit policies.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Brandt et al.
(hereinafter “Brandt”)
US 2004/0117624 A1 June 17, 2004
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 1–35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Brandt.

Examiner’s Answer mailed December 30, 2011 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2012-005903
Application 11/776,721

3

ISSUES ON APPEAL
In view of Appellants’ contentions, the dispositive issue is whether
the cited art teaches or suggests the claimed “determining, by the processing
machine, a plurality of routes among the device groups in the network.” See
App. Br. 6–8.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’
conclusions.
Appellants contend, inter alia, that, “nowhere in the cited text does
Brandt address routes between devices or device groups, and in particular,
nowhere in the cited text is there support for the Examiner’s assertion that
Brandt discloses determining a plurality of routes among device groups.”
App. Br. 7. We agree with that characterization of Brandt.
The Examiner relies on the fact that Brandt discloses network
connections as disclosing determining a plurality of routes. In particular,
Brandt provides that “if a security issue or problem is detected . . .
automated security actions can be generating data to re-configure or re-route
network connections.” Ans. 28 (emphasis omitted) (citing Brandt ¶ 51).
The Examiner poses the question: “if there is not a plurality of routes among
the device groups in the network of Brandt, how would it be possible to
reroute network connections as suggested by Brandt in paragraph 0051?”
Ans. 28–29 (emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2012-005903
Application 11/776,721

4
We agree with Appellants’ response to that question:
[T]he Examiner has merely shown that a plurality of routes
exist in Brandt’s network. The Examiner’s Answer does not
address the fact that Brandt does not disclose determining these
routes.
Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). Appellants submit, and the Examiner does
not dispute, that, “as is well known in the art, it is a relatively simple matter
to re-route traffic between devices, and a relatively complex matter to
determine the routes between devices.” App. Br. 7. For example, there are
well-known techniques for re-routing network traffic that do not require
“any specific identification or determination of the specific routes that will
be created by such a rerouting.” App. Br. 8.
In view of the forgoing discussion, we decline to sustain the rejection
of claim 1.4 Independent claims 16 and 31 also require “determin[ing] a
plurality of routes among the device groups in the network,” and therefore,
for the same reasons, we decline to sustain the rejection of those claims, as
well as all of the remaining claims, which depend from claims 1, 16, or 31.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

4 Appellants have made additional arguments. We do not reach the merits of
these arguments as our agreement with Appellants as indicated in our
discussion infra is dispositive of this appeal.
Appeal 2012-005903
Application 11/776,721

5
msc