Ex Parte Ramaswamy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2013

10506815 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARVIND RAMASWAMY,
DAVID SCHENKEL, and MICHAEL SLAVITCH
____________

Appeal 2011-003941
Application 10/506,815
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-003941
Application 10/506,815

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention detects unauthorized access of a network.
Spec., Abstract.1 Particularly, an agent records IP addresses that have
accessed a network node and reports that information for comparison with
an authorization list. Id.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A data network management system for identifying
unauthorized access to a data network service, provided at a
service node in a data network, by a user node in said data
network, said service node having an agent and having means
for maintaining a user access list, said user access list having at
least one data network address corresponding to at least one
user node in said data network, said system comprising:
a data communication means for periodically polling said
agent at said service node and for retrieving a user access list
from said agent, said user access list specifying which users
have accessed said service node;
a database for maintaining an authorized access list for
said service node, said authorized access list specifying which
users are authorized to access said service node; and
a data processing means for detecting unauthorized
access to said service node by comparing said user access list to

1 We refer to the specification of Appellant’s published Patent Cooperation
Treaty (PCT) application (WO 03/075531 A1). Any further citation to the
Specification also refers to the PCT published application.
Appeal 2011-003941
Application 10/506,815

3
said authorized access list and for updating said authorized
access list based on the user access list retrieved from said
agent.
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Ginzboorg US 6,240,091 B1 May 29, 2001
Noy US 6,539,540 B1 Mar. 25, 2003
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-11, 13-16, and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ginzboorg. Ans., pp. 4-14.2
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Ginzboorg and Noy. Id. at p. 15-16.
ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection of Claims 1, 4-11, 13-16, and 18-20
Claims 1, 4-11, 13-16, and 18-20 stand rejected as anticipated by
Ginzboorg. The Examiner and Appellants disagree as to whether
Ginzboorg’s system detects unauthorized accesses of a network. See infra,
pp. 4-6. Each of the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 5, 13, and 18,
requires detection of an unauthorized access by comparing a “user access
list” and “authorized access list.” An example of such detection is claim 1’s
“data processing means for detecting unauthorized access to said service

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 21, 2010
(“App. Br.”), Examiner’s Answer mailed September 1, 2010 (“Ans.”), and
Reply Brief filed November 1, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-003941
Application 10/506,815

4
node by comparing said user access list to said authorized access list”
(supra, p. 2).
In Ginzboorg, a router stores a list of internet protocol (“IP”)
addresses permitted to access the internet via the router.3 Ginzboorg, col.
10, ll. 32-42 and 62-65; col. 15, ll. 44-57. The router list is periodically
compared to a charging server’s list of IP addresses for paying customers
and updated accordingly. Id. Ginzboorg explains the lists and their
comparison as follows:
[B]ecause of a fault the situation may sometimes change so that
the router prevents the paying customers from accessing the
network providing the services or allows access for non-paying
customers (who do not send payment CDRs). To correct such a
situation the access server polls the router and the charging
server. From the router the access server gets the [router] list
and from the charging server the IP addresses of the customers
who pay at the moment in question for access to the network.
If the address of a paying customer is not included in the
[router] list, the access server adds the address to the list. If an
address included in the [router] list is not included in the paying
customers of the charging server, the access server removes the
address from the [router] list.
Id. at col. 15, ll. 44-57.
The Examiner reads the claimed user access list on Ginzboorg’s router
list. See e.g., Ans., p. 5 (Examiner’s findings for the claimed “data
communication means”). The Examiner reads the claimed authorized access

3 The router’s stored list is termed an “access list” by Ginzboorg. To avoid
confusion with the claimed “user access list,” this opinion refers to
Ginzboorg’s access list as the “router list.”
Appeal 2011-003941
Application 10/506,815

5
list on Ginzboorg’s charging server list. See e.g., id. (Examiner’s findings
for the claimed “database”).4
In response to the Examiner’s findings, Appellants argue:
Ginzboorg’s [router] list is a list of addresses that are permitted
to access the network providing services, and is not a list of all
accesses to a node or the network. Thus, the [router] list of
G[inzboorg] fails to teach or suggest an “access list specifying
which users have accessed said service node ...” as required by
the quoted limitation.
App. Br., p. 14. Thus, Appellants argue that the claimed user access list
must identify a user or users (e.g., IP addresses) that have actually accessed
a network node and, further, that Ginzboorg’s router list (cited as teaching
the claimed user access list) does not satisfy this alleged requirement.
We agree with Appellants’ claim interpretation. In claim 1, the “user
access list specif [ies] which users have accessed said service node”
(emphasis added); not which users (e.g., IP addresses) are permitted to
access the node. Further, claim 1 recites that the data processing means
“detect[s] unauthorized access … by comparing said user access list to said
authorized access list.” Even taken individually, these descriptions of the
user access list and unauthorized access detection clearly convey that an
actual access is identified. And, though embodiments of the Specification
are not read into the claims, the Specification’s description of the invention’s

4 Though the issue was not raised by Appellants’ briefs, we note an
inconsistency in the Examiner’s reading of the claimed lists on Ginzboorg’s
teachings. Particularly, the Examiner reads the claimed user access list on
Ginzboorg’s router list and, contrarily, also reads the claimed updating of the
authorized access list on Ginzboorg’s updating of the router list. See e.g.,
Ans., p. 6 (Examiner’s findings for the claimed “data processing means”).
Appeal 2011-003941
Application 10/506,815

6
objective – identifying actual unauthorized accesses – removes any possible
doubt that these claim limitations each identify/detect an actual access. See
e.g., Spec., abstract; p. 1, ll. 5-10; p. 3, ll. 14-18.
We also agree with Appellant’s interpretation of Ginzboorg’s router
list. Like Appellants, we find that the above-discussed teachings of
Ginzboorg (see supra, pp. 3-4) establish the router list as including IP
addresses permitted to access the internet via the router, but not IP addresses
identified/detected as having actually accessed the internet via the router.
Moreover, Ginzboorg provides an exemplary router list that includes IP
addresses permitted to access the internet via the router – described as “IP
addresses (ClientAddr) of the terminals which can use the interface” – but
does not identify IP addresses that have actually accessed the internet via the
router. Ginzboorg, col. 10, ll. 34-37.
We note the Examiner does not dispute Appellants’ interpretation of
all independent claims as comparing an identified/detected actual access or
accesses of a network to a list of users authorized to access the network. See
e.g., Ans., pp. 19-21 (addressing Ginzboorg’s router list). Rather, the
Examiner disputes only Appellants’ contention that Ginzboorg’s router list
does not identify actual accesses, stating:
Since Ginzboorg teaches in Column 15 Lines 54-57 “If an
address included in the [router] list is not included in the paying
customers of the charging server, the access server removes the
address from the list”, the examiner asserts that Ginzboorg’s
[router] list is not a list of addresses that are permitted to access
the network as suggested by the appellant, but rather it is a list
specifying which users have accessed said service node.
Ans., pp. 20-21. The Examiner speculates that some of the IP addresses
removed from Ginzboorg’s router list – particularly for failing to match an
Appeal 2011-003941
Application 10/506,815

7
IP address of the charging server list (see discussion of Ginzboorg at supra,
p. 4) – would likely include IP addresses that have actually accessed the
internet via the router. Though Ginzboorg’s router list would clearly
sometimes include IP addresses of that sort, such inclusion is not tantamount
to identifying/detecting an IP address that has actually accessed the internet
via the router.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner erred in citing Ginzboorg’s
router list as teaching the user access list of claim 1 and claim 4 depending
therefrom (Ans., pp. 4-6). Accordingly, the § 102 rejection of claims 1 and
4 over Ginzboorg is not sustained.
Independent claim 5 recites a “user access list [that] identifies a
plurality of accesses to said service node” and steps of “b) comparing said
user access list to an authorized access list; c) determining if an access to
said service node was unauthorized[.]” For the reasons stated above with
respect to claim 1, the Examiner erred in citing Ginzboorg’s router list as
teaching the user access list of claim 5 and claims 6-11 depending therefrom
(id. at pp. 7-12). Accordingly, the § 102 rejection of claims 5-11 over
Ginzboorg is not sustained.
Independent claim 13 recites steps of “b) comparing said user access
list to an authorized access list; c) determining if an access to said data
network service was authorized based on said comparison step b)[.]” For the
reasons stated above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner erred in citing
Ginzboorg’s router list as teaching the user access list of claim 13 and claims
14-16 depending therefrom (Ans., pp. 12-13). Accordingly, the § 102
rejection of claims 13-16 over Ginzboorg is not sustained.
Appeal 2011-003941
Application 10/506,815

8
Independent claim 18 recites a “user access list specifying which users
have accessed said service node” and steps of “b) comparing said user
access list to an authorized access list; c) determining if an access to said
data network service was authorized based on said comparison step b)[.]”
For the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner erred in
citing Ginzboorg’s router list as teaching the user access list of claim 18 and
claims 19 and 20 depending therefrom (id. at pp. 13-14). Accordingly, the
§ 102 rejection of claims 18-20 over Ginzboorg is not sustained.
§ 103 Rejection of Claims 2, 3, 12, and 17
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 17 each depend from one of independent claims
1, 5, 13, and 18, addressed above, and stand rejected as obvious over
Ginzboorg and Noy. In addressing claims 2, 3, 12, and 17, the Examiner
again relies on Ginzboorg’s router list as teaching the user access lists of
incorporated base claims 1, 5, 13, and 18 and relies on Noy as teaching
merely a periodic polling of network device agents. Ans., pp. 15-16.
Accordingly, because the Examiner’s finding for Noy does not cure the
Examiner’s erred reading of the claimed user access lists on Ginzboorg’s
router list, the §103 rejection of claims 2, 3, 12, and 17 over Ginzboorg and
Noy is not sustained.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
Vsh