Ex Parte Gould et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 7, 2016

12843343 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/843,343 07/26/2010
22208 7590 04/11/2016
The Marbury Law Group, PLLC
11800 SUNRISE VALLEY DRIVE
15THFLOOR
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenneth Gould
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.
2816-026Cl 5995
EXAMINER
JAKOVAC,RYANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/11/2016 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):
ptonotices @mar bury law. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH GOULD and ANDREW DANFORTH
Appeal2014-002913
Application 12/843,343
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 44, 45, and 47 through 77.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system which allows a subscriber to
block unauthorized network traffic in a data network. See Abstract.
Claim 44 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
44. A system for providing data filtering from a data network
compnsmg:
a data network termination device comprising a packet counter,
wherein the packet counter determines a number of
packets sent to a subscriber device from the packet
counter (herein, "downstream packets") via the data
network and a number of packets originating from the
Appeal2014-002913
Application 12/843,343
subscriber device and sent to the packet counter (herein,
"upstream packets") via the data network; and
a data gateway agent, wherein the packet counter is accessible
to the data gateway agent;
a datastore accessible to the data gateway agent for storing a
data transfer rule selected by a subscriber, wherein the
selected data transfer rule comprises packet filtering
criteria selected by the subscriber,
wherein the data gateway agent comprises instructions that
cause the gateway agent to:
receive a packet prior to receipt of the packet by the
packet counter;
access the data transfer rule stored in the datastore;
apply the packet filtering criteria to the packet to
determine whether the packet violates the data
transfer rule;
send a notice to the subscriber when the packet violates
the data transfer rule;
receive a request to reverse the determination made by
the data gateway agent regarding the packet;
reverse the determination made by the data gateway
agent regarding the packet in response to the
request;
modify in response to the request one or more packet
filtering criteria of the data transfer rule applied to
the packet; and
apply the data transfer rule as modified to subsequent
determinations of the data gateway agent.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 44, 47, 55 through 59, 61, 69 through
72 and 77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones (US
2
Appeal2014-002913
Application 12/843,343
2007/0214083 Al; Sep. 13, 2007), Carrington (\VO 01/55873) and Irving
(US 2004/0103122 Al; May 27, 2004). Answer 3. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 45, 50, 52 through 54, 60, 64, and 66
through 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones,
Carrington, Irving and Jones (US 2003/0182420 Al; Sep. 25, 2003).
Answer 3.
The Examiner rejected claims 51 and 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jones, Carrington, Irving and Noureldien ("Stateful
Inspection Module Architecture"). Answer 3.
The Examiner rejected claims 48 and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jones, Carrington, Irving and Jerrim (US 7,644,151
B2; Jan. 5, 2010). Answer 3.
The Examiner rejected claims 49 and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jones, Carrington, Irving and Official Notice.
Answer 3.
The Examiner rejected claims 73 through 76 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Jones, Carrington, Irving and Goldschmidt (US
2005/0278431 Al; Dec. 15, 2005). Answer 3.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Jones, Carrington and Irving
does not teach sending notice to the subscriber when the packet violates a
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated October 18,
2013, the Reply Brief dated December 31, 2013, the Final Office Action
mailed May 21, 2013, and the Examiner's Answer mailed on December 11,
2013.
3
Appeal2014-002913
Application 12/843,343
data transfer rule as claimed. App. Br. 5- 13. In response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner finds that the claimed "rule" includes "a prescribed
guide for conduct or action." Answer 4. Based upon this interpretation, the
Examiner finds that Jones' teaching of determining when a count of packets
reaches a threshold meets the claimed packet violating a data transfer rule.
Answer4-5.
We disagree with the Examiner's findings. As Appellants argue in the
Reply Brief, while the count threshold may be a rule, it is not a data transfer
rule as used in the claims. Reply Br. 3. Each of independent claims 44, 59,
and 77 recite that before the packet is received by the counter, applying the
data transfer rule (which comprises the packet filtering criteria). Thus,
Appellants argue, since Jones is also relied upon to teach the counter, it
makes no sense that the threshold (which is applied to the count value)
teaches the claimed data transfer rule (which is applied before the packet is
forwarded to the counter). Reply Br. 3. We concur with Appellants.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 44, 59, and 77. We similarly do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 47, 55 through 58, 61, and 69 through 72.
The Examiner has not shown the additional references used in the
rejection of dependent claims 45, 48 through 54, 56, 60, 62 through 68 and
73 through 76 make up for the deficiency in the rejection of claims 44, 59,
and 77.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 44, 45, and 47 through
77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4
Appeal2014-002913
Application 12/843,343
REVERSED
5