Ex Parte Frenkel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

12306692 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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.
12/306,692 12/25/2008 Lior Frenkel 1016-1010.2 5819
82253 7590
D. Kligler I.P. Services LTD
P.O. Box 57651
Tel Aviv, 61576
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
HARRIS, CHRISTOPHER C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2017 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):
daniel@dkpat.co.il
info@dkpat.co.il
alon@dkpat.co.il
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIOR FRENKEL and AMIR ZILBERSTEIN
Appeal 2016-001594
Application 12/306,692
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-001594
Application 12/306,692
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “filtering data delivered
to a computer over a one-way link” (Spec. 2:3—4) in which “a physical path
between a transmitting computer and a receiving computer is divided into
portions comprising two or more one-way links” (Spec. 2:5—8).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for secure communications between a
transmitting computer and a receiving computer, the
method comprising:
transmitting data from the transmitting computer
over a first one-way link to a data security engine, having
no means of sending return communications to the
transmitting computer;
receiving and validating the data within the data
security engine; and
after validating the data, transmitting the data from
the data security engine to the receiving computer over a
second one-way link, wherein the receiving computer has
no means of sending return communications to the data
security engine,
wherein both the transmission from the transmitting
computer to the security engine and from the security
engine to the receiving computer are performed over one
way links which physically can carry data in only one
direction.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—8, 10, 11, 13—20, 22, 23, and 25—33 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Namioka (US 2006/0026292 Al;
2
Appeal 2016-001594
Application 12/306,692
Feb. 2, 2006) in view of Engel (US 6,820,110 Bl; Nov. 16, 2004). Final
Act. 3.
Claims 9 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Namioka in view of Engel, and further in view of Morota
(US 2003/0200460 Al; Oct. 23, 2003). Final Act. 11.
Claims 12 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Namioka in view of Engel, and further in view of De
Arruda Villela (US 2007/0192608 Al; Aug. 16, 2007) (“Villela”). Final
Act. 12.
ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding:
1. the combination of Namioka and Engel discloses or suggests “both the
transmission from the transmitting computer to the security engine
and from the security engine to the receiving computer are performed
over one way links” with no means of sending return
communications, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim
13;
2. Engel discloses or suggests “defining the sequence of time intervals in
the transmitting computer and the data security engine prior to
transmitting the data from the transmitting computer,” as recited in
claim 3 and similarly recited in claim 15; and
3. Villela discloses or suggests, “validating the data comprises
authenticating a source of the data,” as recited in claim 12 and
similarly recited in claim 24.
3
Appeal 2016-001594
Application 12/306,692
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Action
and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Claims 1 and 13
Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because the combination of
Namioka and Engel “describes, at most, use of a single one-way link with no
means of sending return communications, but not that both the data security
engine and the receiving computer have no means of sending return
communications” (App. Br. 5). Appellants contend, “Namioka discusses
limiting the transmissions from the reception computer 201 to the
transmission computer 101 to a layer near the physical layer” (App. Br. 5,
citing Namioka^ 17).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, “Namioka discloses in paragraph^] 30 and 31 that it is physically
impossible for a receiving computer to transmit data to a transmitting
computer” (Ans. 14). We agree, as Namioka discloses “the second
computer cannot physically communicate with the first computer system”
(Namioka ! 31; see also Namioka ! 20.) Further support for this finding
appears in the immediately preceding paragraph of Namioka, which
discloses removal of the reception confirmation connection “if it is not
necessary to confirm whether the data was transmitted without any error”
(Namioka ! 29).
Appellants additionally argue that “the combination of Namioka with
Engel would at most include a single one-way link connecting between two
gateways” (App. Br. 7) and “Engel teaches away” from one-way links
4
Appeal 2016-001594
Application 12/306,692
because Engel “explicitly describes two-way communications” (App. Br. 7,
citing Engel 6:35—56). We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds Namioka “describe[s] the same one way links as described
by the applicant” (Ans. 17) and
Engel was relied upon to teach an intermediary used for the
purpose of ensuring secure communications between a
transmitter and a receiver by analyzing data received from a
transmitter and only after verifying that the received data is safe
transmitting this validated data to a receiver
{Id. citing Engel 5:62—66). We conclude the Examiner’s articulated
reasoning provides a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive when considered with respect to the
Examiner’s reasoning for the combination, in which Namioka supplies the
one-way link and Engel’s configuration suggests using an intermediary in
conjunction with two one-way links.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 13, and dependent claims 2, 4—6, 8—11, 14, 16—18, 21—23, and
25—33 not separately argued.
Claims 3 and 15
Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because “[njowhere does Engel
suggest that the gates are opened according to a predefined schedule of
periods defined prior to transmitting the data” (App. Br. 8; see also Reply
Br. 4). Appellants contend that in Engel, “the gates 7 and 8 are controlled to
ensure that at any time at least one of the gates is closed and the opening of
5
Appeal 2016-001594
Application 12/306,692
the gates is dependent on the arrival of data” (App. Br. 8, citing Engel 6:39—
46, 49-51).
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate is scope with
the claimed language because the claims do not recite a predefined schedule
(Ans. 19). Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings in the
Answer that the program system, of the cited references, defines the
operations and requires specific times for each of the operations to occur
(Ans. 19). This is provided by time-periods defining operations (Ans. 19).
These operations include the operation of transmission by the transmitting
computer, the operation of reception, analysis and transmission by the
intermediary computer and the operation of reception by the receiving
computer as each of the gates are only opened based upon the preceding
action (Ans. 19; Engel col 6,11. 37—46).
Furthermore, even if the claims required a schedule, Appellants’
arguments do not persuade us the combination of cited references does not at
least suggest a schedule based on the findings by the Examiner (see Final
Act. 5, Ans. 19). An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In view of Namioka and Engel, we find one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would define “the
sequence of time intervals” used to transfer the data prior to data
transmission, as claimed. This is because such intervals would define a
schedule to ensure the data security engine receives the data from the
6
Appeal 2016-001594
Application 12/306,692
transmitting computer, especially when the receiving computer has no
means of sending return communications to the data security engine.1
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 15.
Appellants’ similar arguments regarding claims 7 and 19 (see App. Br. 8)
are unpersuasive for similar reasons, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 7 and 19.
Claims 12 and 24
Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because “Villela does not teach
or suggest that the authentication should be performed by a data security
engine between a transmitter and receiver, connected by one-way links”
(App. Br. 9). Appellants contend Villela’s “software agent is installed on
the user’s computer (paragraphs [0019], [0027], [0028]) and together with
the authentication server seems to form a client server architecture
(paragraph [0004])” (App. Br. 9).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Villela:
discloses using digital signatures to authenticate sources of data
transmission in para. 08 and describes how the signatures are
captured in para. 31. Furthermore, Villela does describe a 3 way
system that includes a client (transmitting computer), an
authentication server (data security engine) and a network
available service (receiving computer)
1 We additionally note that Engel teaches that the performance times of its
semantic analysis of data files “can be structured in a flexible manner”
(Engel 5:13—15), suggesting the use of a pre-defmed schedule.
7
Appeal 2016-001594
Application 12/306,692
(Ans. 20). Appellants do not address and rebut the Examiner’s findings
regarding Villela in the Reply Brief (see Reply Br. 1—5), and Appellants’
arguments are additionally unpersuasive of error because Appellants attack
Villela individually, and thus fail to address the Examiner’s findings
regarding the combination of Namioka, Engel, and Villela. See In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 24.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding:
1. the combination of Namioka and Engel discloses or suggests “both the
transmission from the transmitting computer to the security engine
and from the security engine to the receiving computer are performed
over one way links” with no means of sending return
communications, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim
13;
2. Engel discloses or suggests “defining the sequence of time intervals in
the transmitting computer and the data security engine prior to
8
Appeal 2016-001594
Application 12/306,692
transmitting the data from the transmitting computer,” as recited in
claim 3 and similarly recited in claim 15; and
3. Villela discloses or suggests, “validating the data comprises
authenticating a source of the data,” as recited in claim 12 and
similarly recited in claim 24.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—33 is affirmed.
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
9