Ex Parte Mraz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 2017

13747632 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)

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. 13/747,632 01/23/2013 Ronald Mraz OCOOOOIO 1969 95050 7590 03/27/2017 Tnhn S Frnnnmnn EXAMINER 78 Ward Dr. WANG, HARRIS C New Rochelle, NY 10804 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2439 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2017 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): docketing@economoupatentlaw.com uspto@dockettrak.com jeconomou @economousilfin.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RONALD MRAZ and FREDERICK CLARKE Appeal 2016-004549 Application 13/747,632 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHN F. HORVATH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—13, 15—25, and 27—33, constituting all claims currently pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2016-004549 Application 13/747,632 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a system for remotely monitoring status information of devices connected to a network. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for monitoring status of a first and second network and/or of devices coupled to the first or second network, comprising: a send node; a first status monitoring application associated with the send node which outputs a first status log file containing information about status of a first network coupled to the send node and/or of any first devices coupled to the first network; a receive node coupled to the send node via a data link; a second status monitoring application associated with the receive node which outputs a second status log file containing information about status of a second network coupled to the send node and/or of any second devices coupled to the second network; and a receive application for receiving and processing the first status log file and the second status log file to either identify any unauthorized status conditions identified in the first status log file and/or the second status log file or store the first status log file and/or the second status log file; wherein the data link is a one-way data link, wherein the send node is on a first server and is only able to send data over the one-way data link, wherein the receive node is on a second server and is only able to receive data over the one-way data link, and wherein the first server is coupled to the second server only via the one-way data link. 2 Appeal 2016-004549 Application 13/747,632 REJECTIONS1 Claims 1, 3—9, 11—13, 15—21, 23—25, 27—30, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wookey (US 6,023,507; issued Feb. 8, 2000) and Mraz (US 2008/0259929 Al; published Oct. 23, 2008). Claims 10, 22, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wookey, Mraz, and Roberts et al. (US 2007/0233842 Al; published Oct. 4, 2007) (“Roberts”). ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in combining Wookey and Mraz? The Examiner relies on Wookey for all limitations in independent claim 1, except for the recited one-way data link, for which the Examiner relies on Mraz. Final Act. 6—8; see Ans. 2—5. The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Wookey with the secure one-way data link of Mraz “to enforce unidirectionality of dataflow across a data link.” Id. Appellants contend “[tjhere is no reason to combine Wookey and Mraz absent impermissible hindsight.” App. Br. 4. Specifically, Appellants argue “all of the data links [in Wookey] require bidirectional communications” and “[ijnserting a one-way data link between a slave and a 1 In the Final Rejection, claims 1, 3—10, 11—13, 15—25, and 27—33 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite. Final Act. 4—5. Appellants addressed the Examiner’s issues via an Amendment dated May 11, 2015, which was entered by the Examiner as indicated in the Advisory Action dated May 22, 2015. Accordingly, these rejections are not before us. 3 Appeal 2016-004549 Application 13/747,632 master [as in Wookey] would prevent any return acknowledgement messages from being received by the slave and thus prevent any communication using conventional networking protocol (since the one-way data link blocks the acknowledgement signals).” App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue “the addition of the Mraz one-way link to the Wookey remote computer monitoring system would result in a system that is either inoperable or fundamentally different than the original Wookey system.” App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2—3. Finally, Appellants contend “the purported motivation advanced by the Examiner is merely conclusory because the Examiner cites to a benefit of the Mraz one-way link only and does not explain how the Mraz one-way link benefits the Wookey remote computer monitoring system.” App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 3. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Wookey describes a remote monitoring system that includes a plurality of monitored computers coupled together by a network. Wookey col. 2,11. 30—31. One or more of the monitored computers is a master and other monitored computers are slaves that are coupled to the master. Wookey col. 2,11. 31—32; col. 3,11. 39-41. A slave computer is bound to a single master computer. Wookey col. 7,11. 13—15. The monitored computers, both slaves and masters, run diagnostics at scheduled intervals and store the results of the diagnostics in log files. Wookey col. 3,11. 50-53. The saved diagnostic information is collected at a location accessible by the master, such as a location local to the master, and the master communicates the diagnostic information to a service center at scheduled intervals. Wookey col. 3,11. 55—60. Wookey describes that the master may either gather or be sent the log files from the slaves. Wookey col. 6,11. 41^44. 4 Appeal 2016-004549 Application 13/747,632 The Examiner finds Wookey’s slaves, as modified by Mraz, would send diagnostic information to the master using a unidirectional link, rather than a bidirectional link. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. In other words, the Examiner’s proposed modification of Wookey would only allow communications from the slaves to the master, and would eliminate communications from the master to the slaves. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s proposed modification would change the principal of operation of Wookey, because Wookey describes that the master communicates with, and controls, the slaves. See, e.g., Wookey col. 7,11. 5— 7 (“master maintains a list of all its slaves, and can attempt to autostart them if they go down via a remote procedure call (RPC)”); col. 12,11. 41—42 (“the master may signal its slaves to stop logging test results”); col. 16,11. 16—18 (“how often the master checks to see if any of its slaves are down . . . maximum time the master will wait before it retrieves test data from its slaves”). Given that the Examiner’s proposed modification eliminates the master/slave computer configuration described in Wookey, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient rationale to combine Wookey and Mraz. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred, and therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3—13, 15-25, and 27-33. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—13, 15— 25, and 27—33 is reversed. REVERSED 5