Ex Parte Okunseinde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2013

10803590 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2013)

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.
10/803,590 03/18/2004 Folu Okunseinde AUS920031041US1 7383
50170 7590 04/26/2013
IBM CORP. (WIP)
c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
17330 PRESTON ROAD
SUITE 100B
DALLAS, TX 75252
EXAMINER
GERGISO, TECHANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte FOLU OKUNSEINDE and TYRON STADING

________________

Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN G. NEW, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

2
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 28-29, and 31-341 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Suzuki (US 2004/0259529 Al, December 23, 2004)
(“Suzuki”) and Lee, IV et al. (US 2005/0188072 Al, August 25, 2005)
(“Lee”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
providing transaction-level security. The method comprises determining
security information associated with at least one object of a transaction and
determining if a remote device is capable of providing a level of security
indicated by at least a portion of the security information. The method
further comprises transmitting the object to the remote device in response to
determining that the remote device is capable of providing the level of
security. Abstract.

1 Appellants also appeal the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). App. Br. 4. Because the Examiner withdrew the
rejection of the claims on this ground, we need not reach that issue in this
appeal. Ans. 3. Claims 9-27 and 30 are cancelled. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

3
GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Because Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for substantially
the same reasons with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 28, 29, and 31-34, we
select claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 6, 14. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method, comprising:

determining security information associated with a[n]
object of a transaction, wherein the security information is
inserted in a header of the object and the object is to be
transmitted from a source device to a target device along a
transmission path that includes at least one intermediate
device

determining, at each of the source device, and the at least
one intermediate device along the transmission path as the
object is transmitted along the transmission path, whether a
next device in the transmission path to which the object is to be
transmitted provides a level of security indicated by at least a
portion of the security information in the header of the object;
and
transmitting, at each of the source device, and the at least
one intermediate device along the transmission path as the
object is transmitted along the transmission path, the object to
the next device in the transmission path in response to
determining that the next device provides the level of security
required by the at least a portion of the security information.

App. Br. 25.

Appellants argue separately that the Examiner also erred with respect
to claim 2, which Appellants allege contains separate subject matter not
rendered obvious over the prior art references. App. Br. 15. Claim 2
recites:
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

4
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the object is a business
object, and wherein determining if the next device in the
transmission path provides the level of security comprises:

transmitting to the next device in the transmission path
information representative of the level of security that is
desired; and

receiving a response from the next device in the
transmission path indicating that the next device in the
transmission path provides the desired level of security.

App. Br. 25.

Appellants argue separately that the Examiner erred with respect to
claims 6 and 32, which Appellants allege contain separate subject matter
not rendered obvious over the prior art references. App. Br. 15, 22. We
therefore select claim 6 as representative. Claim 6 recites:
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining
an alternative device along a different transmission path that
provides the level of security required by the at least a portion
of the security information in response to determining that the
next device in the transmission path does not provide the level
of security required by the at least a portion of the security
information.

App. Br. 27.

Appellants argue separately that the Examiner erred with respect to
claims 7 and 29, which Appellants allege contain separate subject matter
not rendered obvious over the prior art references. App. Br. 18. We
therefore select claim 7 as representative. Claim 7 recites:
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising sending a
message to the next device in the transmission path instructing
the next device to execute at least one module that allows the
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

5
next device to provide the level of security required by the at
least a portion of the security information.

App. Br. 27.
Appellants argue separately that the Examiner also erred with respect
to claim 31, which Appellants allege contains separate subject matter not
rendered obvious over the prior art references. App. Br. 19. Claim 31
recites:
31. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one intermediate
device includes at least a first intermediate device and a second
intermediate device;

wherein determining if a next device in the transmission
path provides a level of security required by the at least a
portion of security information includes performing the
determining at the source device, wherein the next device is the
first intermediate device;

wherein transmitting the object to the next device
comprises transmitting the object to the first intermediate
device, and wherein in response to determining that the next
device provides the level of security, and in response to
determining that the first intermediate device provides the level
of security:

determining, at the first device, if a second device
of the plurality of intermediate devices that is adjacent
the first device provides the level of security indicated by
the at least a portion of the security information;

transmitting the object to the second device of the
plurality of intermediate devices in response to
determining that the second device provides the level of
security; and

Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

6
transmitting the object to the target device from the
second device.

App. Br. 28-29.
Appellants argue separately that the Examiner also erred with respect
to claim 33, which Appellants allege contains separate subject matter not
rendered obvious over the prior art references. App. Br. 22. Claim 33
recites:
33. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one
intermediate device includes a plurality of intermediate devices;

wherein determining if a next device in the transmission
path provides a level of security comprises determining, at a
previous device in the transmission path, a security level for
each intermediate device of the plurality of intermediate
devices;

wherein transmitting the object to the next device in the
transmission path, in response to determining that the next
device is adapted to provide the level of security, comprises
transmitting the object to each of the plurality of intermediate
devices in the transmission path in response to determining that
each of the plurality of intermediate devices provides the level
of security;

further comprising:

transmitting the object to the target device.

App. Br. 29-30.
Appellants argue separately that the Examiner also erred with respect
to claim 34, which Appellants allege contains separate subject matter not
rendered obvious over the prior art references. App. Br. 24. Claim 34
recites:
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

7
34. The method of claim 1, wherein the object is one of a
plurality of objects of the transaction, and wherein at least two
of the objects in the plurality of objects have different security
information in their respective headers identifying different
levels of security required to be provided by devices along
corresponding transmission paths to receive the at least two
objects.

App. Br. 30.

ISSUES AND ANALYSES
We address each of Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as presented in
Appellants’ Brief.

A. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 2, 4, 6-8, 28, 29, and 31-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Suzuki and Lee teaches or suggests the limitations of claim
1 reciting “determining, at each of the source device, and the at least one
intermediate device along the transmission path as the object is transmitted
along the transmission path, whether a next device in the transmission path
to which the object is to be transmitted provides a level of security indicated
by at least a portion of the security information in the header of the object”
and “transmitting, at each of the source device, and the at least one
intermediate device along the transmission path as the object is transmitted
along the transmission path, the object to the next device in the transmission
path in response to determining that the next device provides the level of
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

8
security required by the at least a portion of the security information.” App.
Br. 6-7. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that neither Suzuki nor Lee, alone or in
combination, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. App. Br. 7.
Specifically, Appellants argue that Suzuki is directed to validating that a
frame is being sent from an authenticated valid terminal and is not
concerned with determining whether a next device along a transmission
path provides a level of security indicated by at least a portion of the
security information in the header of an object being transmitted. Id. To
the contrary, argue Appellants, Suzuki is specifically “looking backward” to
the source to determine if the source was valid. Id.
Appellants argue further that Suzuki neither teaches nor suggests
transmitting an object along the transmission path to the next device in
response to determining that the next device provides a level of security
required by the portion of the security information in the header of the
object. App. Br. 7-8. To the contrary, contend Appellants, Suzuki teaches
that the frame is processed only when it is determined that the source of the
frame, i.e. the terminal from which the frame is transmitted, is an
authenticated valid terminal. App. Br. 8.
Furthermore, Appellants contend, Lee does not remedy the alleged
deficiencies of Suzuki. App. Br. 11. Appellants argue that Lee is directed
to a mechanism for dynamically constructing a protocol to facilitate
communication between nodes and across multiple nodes. Id. Appellants
assert that Lee provides a mechanism for establishing internode protocols
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

9
dynamically, based on the policies of the nodes positioned between the
source and destination. Id. Appellants argue that Lee teaches creating a
protocol that is supported by all of the nodes along a communication path
prior to performing any communication. Id. Appellants contend that this
means that the protocol that is created has a minimum number of protocol
properties, according to the lowest common denominator amongst the
nodes. Id.
Appellants therefore argue that Lee does not teach or suggest
performing security level checks on each individual device of a
transmission path, wherein the individual device provides a level of security
required by header information an object of a transaction prior to the object
being transmitted to the device and transmitting the object to that device in
response to a determination that the device supports the required level of
security. App. Br. 12. In fact, argue Appellants, Lee implicitly teaches that
there is no need to perform a check at each device along a transmission path
as to whether a next device along the transmission path provides a required
level of security since the protocol is established a priori before any
transmission is performed. Id. Hence, contend Appellants, any alleged
combination of Suzuki and Lee, even if such a combination were possible
and one were somehow motivated to attempt such a combination, would
still not result in the features of independent claim 1 being taught or
rendered obvious. App. Br. 14.
The Examiner responds that, applying the broadest reasonable
interpretation to the claims in light of the specification, “at least one
intermediate device” is interpreted as “an intermediate device” between a
source device and a target device to constitute only three devices to form a
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

10
path (a source device, an intermediate device and a target device). Ans. 12.
Likewise, the Examiner finds that the limitation “determining a level of
security provided by a next device (in effect a target device) indicated by at
least a portion of security information in the header of the object” may be
interpreted broadly and reasonably to correspond to any security function or
rule or policy or a security key or even the device’s identification as long as
it matches with security as indicated in the header of the object. Ans. 13.
The Examiner finds that Suzuki teaches or suggests the latter
limitation by teaching matching a key and a terminal identifier of a
receiving terminal in the authentication header of a frame at a transmitting
terminal and also by mutually authenticating the transmitting terminal and
the receiving terminal. Ans. 13 (citing Suzuki, ¶¶ [0011], [0021], [0050],
[0069]). The Examiner finds that the receiving terminal validates the
received authentication header to validate the transmitter, the transmitting
terminal validates the receiving terminal, and this mutual authentication is
carried out in tandem form to include the intermediate devices. Ans. 13
(citing Suzuki, Fig. 1).
The Examiner finds that, although Suzuki does not explicitly teach
security information associated with a transaction object and providing a
level of security indicated by at least a portion of the security information,
Lee teaches or suggests that security information is associated with a
transaction object (citing Lee, ¶¶ [0028], [0054]) and providing a level of
security indicated by at least a portion of the security information. Ans. 13
(citing Lee ¶¶ [0043], [0054], [0094], [0106-0107]). The Examiner also
finds that Lee discloses a method and a system for retrieving an
intermediate node policy and a destination node policy, the intermediate
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

11
node policy characterizing communication properties supported by an
intermediate node and the destination node policy characterizing
communication properties supported by a destination node, the intermediate
node being between a source node and the destination node in a
communication path. Ans. 14 (citing Lee, ¶¶ [0010], [0019], [0034]).
We are persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning and adopt it as our
own. As an initial matter, we agree with the Examiner that the limitation
“determining a level of security provided by a next device (in effect a target
device) indicated by at least a portion of security information in the header
of the object” may be interpreted broadly and reasonably to correspond to
any security function or rule or policy or a security key or even the device's
identification as long as it matches with security as indicated in the header
of the object. Ans. 13; see, e.g., Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
No. 2012–1120, 2013 WL 1603360, at *2 (Fed. Cir. April 16, 2013)
(Examiner employs “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in claim
interpretation).
We find that Lee teaches that “a policy can specify message encoding
formats, security algorithms, tokens, transport addresses, transaction
semantics, routing requirements, and other properties related to message
transmission or reception” and that “[i]mplementations of policies …
specify one or more assertions, which can aid two or more nodes in a
message exchange in determining if their requirements and capabilities are
compatible.” Lee, ¶ [0028]; see Ans. 13. We further agree with the
Examiner that Lee teaches or suggests that such security information is
associated with a transaction object (Lee, ¶ [0054]; see Ans. 13) and that
Lee teaches or suggests retrieving an intermediate node policy and a
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

12
destination node policy, the intermediate node policy characterizing
communication properties supported by an intermediate node and the
destination node policy characterizing communication properties supported
by a destination node, the intermediate node being between a source node
and the destination node in a communication path. Ans. 14.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Suzuki teaches
matching a key and a terminal identifier of a receiving terminal in the
authentication header of a frame at a transmitting terminal and also by
mutually authenticating the transmitting terminal and the receiving
terminal. Ans. 13. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
teachings or suggestions of Suzuki are essentially “backward-looking” only.
See App. Br. 7. On the contrary, we find that Suzuki teaches that
authentication via a header authentication key occurs in both directions:
“when a terminal is to be connected to the network resources, mutual
authentication is performed among the devices. Then, an authentication
header key (FIG. 9) and a unicast encryption key (FIG. 10) are shared in
accordance with the key distribution sequence described below following
the mutual authentication.” Suzuki, ¶ [0069]; see Ans. 13.
We therefore find that the combination of Lee and Suzuki teaches or
suggests the limitations of claim 1 reciting “determining, at each of the
source device, and the at least one intermediate device along the
transmission path as the object is transmitted along the transmission path,
whether a next device in the transmission path to which the object is to be
transmitted provides a level of security indicated by at least a portion of the
security information in the header of the object” and “transmitting, at each
of the source device, and the at least one intermediate device along the
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

13
transmission path as the object is transmitted along the transmission path,
the object to the next device in the transmission path in response to
determining that the next device provides the level of security required by
the at least a portion of the security information.” We consequently
conclude that the Examiner did not err in so finding.

B. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Suzuki and Lee teaches or suggests the additional
limitations of claim 2 reciting “transmitting to the next device in the
transmission path information representative of the level of security that is
desired” and “receiving a response from the next device in the transmission
path indicating that the next device in the transmission path provides the
desired level of security.” App. Br. 15. We therefore address the question
of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants admit that Lee teaches or suggests that the system
includes a source node policy, a policy retriever for retrieving an
intermediate node policy, and a message generator that generates a request
message. App. Br. 15 (citing, Lee, ¶ [0011]). Appellants additionally
contend that Lee teaches or suggests that the policy retriever retrieves
policies from other nodes by requesting the policy from another node,
receiving the policy, and caching the received policy or retrieving the
policy from local memory. App. Br. 15 (citing, Lee, ¶ [0034]). Appellants
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

14
argue that the retriever can also determine if the retrieved policy is
compatible with a local policy and select a compatible policy expression in
the retrieved policy. App. Br. 15-16. Appellants argue that Lee merely
teaches that node B’s policy retriever operates in the same way as the policy
retriever of node A and has a message generator that transmits a message in
accordance with an input policy of node A. App. Br. 16 (citing, Lee, ¶
[0037]).
Appellants contend, therefore, that the sections of Lee cited above
teach policy retrieval for intermediate nodes, but that nothing in these
sections, or any other section, of Lee teaches or suggests the specific
features of transmitting to the next device in the transmission path
information representative of the level of security that is desired or
receiving a response from the next device in the transmission path
indicating that the next device in the transmission path provides the desired
level of security. App. Br. 16. To the contrary, argue Appellants, Lee
retrieves the policy for the intermediate node and determines compatible
expressions in the intermediate node’s policy that are compatible with the
policy of the source node. Id.
The Examiner responds that Lee discloses that policy messages and
policy expression are transmitted and received between each node across
the transmission path to comply with application level security at each
node. Ans. 14 (citing Lee, ¶¶ [0093]-[0095]).
We agree with the Examiner. Lee teaches sending and receiving
policy retrieval messages between the source node and the intermediate and
destination nodes, and returning policy messages to the source node from
the intermediate and destination modes. Lee, ¶¶ [0087]-[0088], [0093]-
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

15
[0095]. We have explained supra that Lee teaches that policies can include
information with respect to the levels of security available at each node.
We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the
combination of Suzuki and Lee teaches or suggests the disputed limitation
of claim 2.

C. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Suzuki and Lee teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 6
reciting “determining an alternative device along a different transmission
path that provides the level of security required by the at least a portion of
the security information in response to determining that the next device in
the transmission path does not provide the level of security required by the
at least a portion of the security information.” App. Br. 16. We therefore
address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that Lee teaches or suggests a process of procuring
the destination node policy by obtaining policy from an intermediate node,
selecting a policy expression from the policy of the intermediate node and
applying it to a policy retrieval message that includes the policy for the
source node. App. Br. 17 (citing Lee, ¶¶ [0083]-[0088]). Appellants assert
that Lee teaches that the intermediate node receives the policy retrieval
message, validates it based on the selected policy expression that was
applied to the policy retrieval message, and then requests the policy from
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

16
the destination node. Id. Appellants further contend that the intermediate
node then places the policy of the destination node into a message for the
source node by applying a policy of the source node to the message and
sending it back to the source node. Id. However, argue Appellants, Lee
nowhere teaches or suggests the limitation of determining an alternative
device along a different transmission path that provides the level of security
required by the at least a portion of the security information in response to
determining that the next device in the transmission path does not provide
the level of security required by the at least a portion of the security
information. App. Br. 17.
The Examiner responds that Lee teaches routing through firewalls at
each node in the path that may have policies related to data protocols that
are preferred or available and/or required by the node. Ans. 15 (citing Lee,
¶ [0083]). The Examiner finds that Lee discloses selecting and retrieving a
security policy expression at each node for the message to reach a
destination from source though intermediate node. Ans. 15 (citing Lee, ¶¶
[0084]-[0085]).
We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s findings. Lee teaches that:
[o]ften, in actual operation, messages from one node are routed
through other nodes before reaching the destination node. For
example, in a corporate environment, messages may be routed
through a firewall, a main server, and finally to a recipient’s
computer. Each node in the path may have policies related to
data protocols that are preferred, available, and/or required by
the node.

Lee, ¶ [0083]. Lee thus teaches that different nodes may have different
levels of security, as expressed by differing policies. However, we do not
find, in the paragraphs cited by the Examiner or elsewhere in Lee, that Lee
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

17
teaches or suggests routing through an alternate node, with the desired level
of security, if a node in the pathway does not have a sufficient level of
security. We therefore conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Suzuki and Lee teaches or suggests the disputed limitation
of claim 6.

D. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited
prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 7 reciting
“sending a message to the next device in the transmission path instructing
the next device to execute at least one module that allows the next device to
provide the level of security required by at least a portion of the security
information.” App. Br. 18-19. We therefore address the issue of whether
the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants repeat their argument with respect to claim 6 supra,
contending that Lee does not teach or suggest sending a message to a next
device instructing that device to execute a module that allows the next
device to provide a level of security required by the at least a portion of the
security information, as recited in claim 7. App. Br. 19 (citing Lee, ¶¶
[0083]-[0088]).
The Examiner answers that the cited paragraphs of Lee teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 15 (citing Lee, ¶¶ [0083]-[0088]).
We agree with the Examiner. Lee teaches that:
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

18
Source node 502 generates a message intended for the
destination node 504. As discussed above, source node 502
retrieves the policy of the destination node 504, in order to
select a policy expression, and apply the selected policy
expression to the message. However, in order to retrieve the
policy of the destination node 504, the source node 502 must go
through intermediate node X 506 and intermediate node Y 508.
….
The policy retrieval message is a request for the policy from the
destination node 504. Included with the policy retrieval
message is the policy related to the source node 502. The
intermediate node X 506 receives the policy retrieval message,
including the policy of the source node 502, and validates the
message, as discussed above, by checking to see that a valid
policy expression was applied to the policy retrieval message.
If the policy retrieval message is valid, the intermediate node X
506 requests the policy from the destination node 504.

The intermediate node X 506 puts the policy of the destination
node 504 into a message for the source node 502. This includes
applying the policy of the source node 502 to the message so
that the message to the source node 502 conforms to the policy
of the source node 502. The source node 502 receives and
validates the message and reads the policy of the destination
node 504.

Lee, ¶¶ [0085]; [0087]-[0088]. We have explained supra how the
combination of Suzuki and Lee teaches or suggests transmitting, at each of
the source device, and to the at least one intermediate device along the
transmission path as the object is transmitted along the transmission path,
the object to the next device in the transmission path in response to
determining that the next device provides the level of security required by
the at least a portion of the security information. We find that Lee teaches
or suggests determining the security level that is to be executed at each
node and then, as the object is transmitted, the policy (i.e., the security
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

19
level) is executed at each node. Lee, ¶¶ [0092]-[0094]; see Ans. 15. We
therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in determining that the
combination of Lee and Suzuki teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 7
reciting “sending a message to the next device in the transmission path
instructing the next device to execute at least one module that allows the
next device to provide the level of security required by at least a portion of
the security information.”

E. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 31, which
recites an implementation of the method of claim 1. App. Br. 19. We
therefore address whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that claim 31 recites a specific implementation of
the method of claim 1, in which there are two intermediate nodes and the
method is first implemented at the source node with regard to the first
intermediate node being the “next node” in the transmission path and then
the method is performed at the first intermediate node (which then operates
as the “source node”) with regard to a second intermediate node (which
then operates as the “next node” in the transmission path). App. Br. 19.
Appellants argue that, for the same reasons with respect to claim 1, the
alleged combination of Suzuki and Lee fails to teach or render obvious the
features of claim 31. Id.
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

20
The Examiner responds that Lee discloses that the retrieving
operation 604 sends the created policy request to the first node in the list.
Ans. 15 (citing Lee, ¶ [0104]). The Examiner finds that the first node in the
list removes a policy level (related to the first node) from the message and
forwards the request message on to the next node. App. Br. 15-16. The
Examiner finds that the next node receives the policy request message and,
if the request is for the node’s policy, that node sends back its policy;
otherwise, the request is forwarded on to the next node. Ans. 16.
The Examiner further finds that Lee teaches or suggests the retrieving
operation 604, the selecting operation 606, the determining operation 608,
the inserting operation 610, the determining operation 612, and the creating
operation 614 continue until the policy of each node in the multiple-node
communication path is retrieved and compatible policy expressions are
selected from each of the policies. Ans. 17 (citing Lee, ¶ [0105]).
Therefore, finds the Examiner, a compatible policy expression is selected
corresponding to each of the policies and each of the nodes. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants admit that their argument
with respect to claim 31 is essentially the same as their argument with
respect to claim 1. We have related supra our reasoning as to why the
Examiner did not err with respect to claim 1, and we adopt the same
reasoning with respect to claim 31. We therefore conclude that the
Examiner did not err in finding that the cited prior art references teach or
suggest the recitation of claim 31.

Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

21
F. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Lee and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 33 reciting
the features of “wherein determining if a next device in the transmission
path provides a level of security comprises determining, at a previous
device in the transmission path, a security level for each intermediate
device of the plurality of intermediate devices” and “wherein transmitting
the object to the next device in the transmission path, in response to
determining that the next device provides the level of security, comprises
transmitting the object to each of the plurality of intermediate devices in the
transmission path in response to determining that each of the plurality of
intermediate devices provides the level of security.” App. Br. 22. We
therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that Lee teaches or suggests only that the policies of
the nodes are gathered and applied to a message in a layered manner. App.
Br. 23 (citing Lee, ¶¶ [0084]; [0094]). According to Appellants, the cited
portions of Lee teach or suggest that the message includes multiple layers
of policies that are retrieved from the nodes along a path to a destination
node, but there is no teaching in any of these sections regarding
determining, at a previous device in the transmission path, a security level
for each intermediate device of the plurality of intermediate devices. Id.
Moreover, assert Appellants, there is no teaching of transmitting the object
to each of the plurality of intermediate devices in the transmission path in
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

22
response to determining that each of the plurality of intermediate devices
provides the level of security. Id.
The Examiner responds that Appellants’ argument is no more than a
general allegation instead of showing distinction between claimed features
and cited prior art and that Lee teaches or suggests the disputed limitations
of claim 33. Ans. 16 (citing Lee, ¶¶ [0084]; [0094]; [0100]).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ contentions, with
respect to claim 33, amount to no more than a general allegation that the
claim defines a patentable invention. Ans. 16. Accordingly, Appellants fail
to show error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (interpreting Rule 41.37). Moreover, we have
addressed Appellants’ arguments supra with respect to the substance of
these limitations in our discussion of the preceding claims. We therefore
conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of
Lee and Suzuki teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 33.

G. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Lee and Suzuki teaches or suggests the limitation of claim
34 reciting “wherein the object being one of a plurality of objects of the
transaction, and wherein at least two of the objects in the plurality of
objects have different security information in their respective headers
identifying different levels of security required to be provided by devices
along corresponding transmission paths to receive the at least two objects.”
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

23
App. Br. 23-24. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so
erred.

Analysis
Appellants contend, with reference to their arguments supra, that
there is no mention of objects, let alone multiple objects of a transaction or
at least two objects of the same transaction having different levels of
security required by devices along the transmission path, nor is there any
correlation between what is taught or suggested by Lee and the limitations
recited in claim 34. App. Br. 24.
The Examiner responds that Appellants’ argument, instead of
showing distinction between claimed features and cited prior art, is no more
than a general allegation and that Lee teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of claim 34. Ans. 16-17 (citing Lee, ¶¶ [0083]-[0084]; [0094];
[0100]).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ contentions, with
respect to claim 34, amount to no more than a general allegation that the
claim defines a patentable invention. Ans. 16. Accordingly, Appellants fail
to show error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at
1357. Furthermore Lee teaches that “[t]he selected policy expressions are
applied to an underlying message 510 in order of farthest node to closest
node, relative to the source node 502” and that, by way of example, “the
underlying message 510 may be a book order [i.e., a business object].”
Lee, ¶ [0092]. Lee further teaches that it was well-known in the
contemporaneous art that different types of communications require
different protocols. Lee, ¶¶ [0003]-[0004]; see also Ans. 5. We conclude
Appeal 2011-000090
Application 10/803,590

24
that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to
know, in light of the teachings and suggestions of Lee and Suzuki, that
multiple objects might be transmitted between a source and a target,
requiring different security levels (i.e., policies). We therefore further
conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of
the cited prior art references teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of
claim 1.

DECISION

The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 7, 8, 28-29, 31, 33, and 34
as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 32 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc