Ex Parte Lu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13623335 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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.
13/623,335 09/20/2012 Wei Lu 82900919 3334
56436 7590 12/02/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
SKRIPNIKOV, ALEX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEI LU, BLAINE KUBESH, and JIANHUA XIE
Appeal 2016-001398
Application 13/623,335
Technology Center 2400
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—7, 14—18, 20-23, 25, and 26. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to identifying network traffic
via stream fingerprint. Spec 113, 16. Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a stream of data packets at a stream fingerprint
processor;
determining a stream fingerprint based on characteristics of
the stream of data packets, wherein the characteristics of the
stream of data packets comprise an identification of an endpoint
that was first to send an application level message in the stream of
data packets; and
Appeal 2016-001398
Application 13/623,335
identifying an application associated with the stream based
on the stream fingerprint.
The Examiner rejects claims 1—5, 7, 20, 22, 23, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang (US 8,631,106 B2, issued
January 14, 2014) and Goldberg (US 6,816,455 B2, issued November 9,
2004); claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang,
Goldberg, and Starr (US 2006/0168281 Al, published July 27, 2006); claim
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Goldberg, and
Bodlaender (US 2003/0009588 Al, published January 9, 2003); claim 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Goldberg, and
Partridge (US 2003/0097595 Al, published May 22, 2003); claims 14, 16,
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goldberg and Baker
(US 8,645,543 B2, issued February 4, 2014); claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Goldberg, and Baker; and claim 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goldberg, Baker, and
Thomas (US 6,148,336, issued November 14, 2000).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—7, 14—18, 20—23, 25, and
26?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites determining a stream fingerprint based on an
identification of an endpoint that was first to send an application level
message in the stream of data packets. Claims 14 and 22 recite a similar
feature.
2
Appeal 2016-001398
Application 13/623,335
Appellants argue that Goldberg fails to disclose or suggest “an
identification of an endpoint that was first to send an application level
messase in the stream of data packetsApp. Br. 7. The Examiner finds
that Goldberg discloses this feature. Final Act. 2—4, Ans. 3, 12—14 (citing
Goldberg 11:34—65, 12:37-40). We disagree with the Examiner for at least
the reasons set forth by Appellants. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2—A.
The Examiner finds that Goldberg discloses that “any of the missing
parameters such as IP source address [or] IP destination address . . . will be
determined based on the first IP packet of the stream” and that the “IP
source and destination addresses in IP packets will indicate both endpoints
including the endpoint which ‘was first to send’, since any stream will
certainly include the first packet in the stream.” Ans. 13,14 (citing
Goldberg 11:52—54, 58—63, 12:35—40). Hence, the Examiner finds that
Goldberg discloses that missing information may be determined based on
the first packet of a data stream.
As Appellants indicate, the cited portions of Goldberg do not disclose
that missing information may be determined based on the first packet of a
data stream. Rather, Goldberg discloses that “the CPU . . . attempts] to
‘fill’” in the missing information “upon receipt of the first packet yielding a
partial socket match.” Reply Br. 3; Goldberg 11:52—54. The Examiner does
not indicate where Goldberg discloses that the “first packet yielding a partial
socket match” is also the “first packet” received.
3
Appeal 2016-001398
Application 13/623,335
In any event, as Appellants state (Reply Br. 3—4), even assuming that
the “first packet yielding a partial socket match” of Goldberg is also the
“first packet” received, the Examiner does not demonstrate sufficiently that
Goldberg (or any other cited reference) also discloses the identification of a
first endpoint to send a message in the stream of packets, as recited in claim
1. Nor does the Examiner explain how the alleged receipt of a first packet
(that yields a partial socket match) in Goldberg equates to the identification
of a first endpoint (that sends a message), as recited in claim 1 or how one of
skill in the art would have understood that a (first) endpoint (or computing
device) is the same as a (first) data “packet.”
The Examiner does not indicate that any of Huang, Starr, Baker,
Thomas, Bodlaender, or Partridge makes up for the deficiencies of
Goldberg. Claims 2—7, 15—18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26 depend from any of claims
1, 14, 22. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—7, 14—18, 20—23, 25,
and 26.
SUMMARY
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 20, 22, 23, and
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang and Goldberg;
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Goldberg,
and Starr; claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang,
Goldberg, and Bodlaender; claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Huang, Goldberg, and Partridge; claims 14, 16, and 17
4
Appeal 2016-001398
Application 13/623,335
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goldberg and Baker; claim
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Goldberg, and
Baker; and claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Goldberg, Baker, and Thomas.
REVERSED
5