Ex Parte Sainio et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 19, 201613071151 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/071,151 03/24/2011 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 10/21/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Miikka Johannes Sainio 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. P4944US01 3442 EXAMINER DESROSIERS, EV ANS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/21/2016 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MIIKKA JOHANNES SAINIO and ATTE LAHTIRANT A Appeal2015-006856 Application 13/071,151 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Nokia Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2015-006856 Application 13/071,151 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention relates generally to proxy-based access controls. Abstract. Claims 1 and 10 are representative and read as follows (with the disputed limitations emphasized): 1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal based, at least in part, on the following: a designation of at least one monitoring client of a proxy server; and an input for associating one or more accessing clients with the at least one monitoring client, wherein the at least one monitoring client manages, remotely from the proxy server, access to one or more resources of the proxy server by the one or more accessing clients. 10. A method of claim 1, wherein the at least one monitoring client and the one or more accessing clients are peer clients of the proxy server. Appeal Br. 16 and 18 (Claims App.). References Bracewell US 2004/0098609 Al May 20, 2004 Wikman US 2008/0098463 Al Apr. 24, 2008 Holloway US 2012/0117641 Al May 10, 2012 2 Appeal2015-006856 Application 13/071,151 Rejections on Appeal 1. Claims 1-5, 9-15, and 19-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wikman. 2. Claims 6-8 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wikman, in view of Holloway, and further in view of Bracewell. Issues on Appeal Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief2 and Reply Brief present us with the following issues: 1. Does Wikman teach "a designation of at least one monitoring client of a proxy server," and "wherein the at least one monitoring client manages, remotely from the proxy server, access to one or more resources of the proxy server by the one or more accessing clients," as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claim 11? 2. Does Wikman teach "another input, from the at least one monitoring client, for specifying one or more access policies, one or more access lists, or a combination thereof with respect to the one or more resources," as recited in claim 2, and as similarly recited in claim 12? 2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action (mailed June 18, 2014, "Final Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 20, 2015, "Appeal Br.") and Reply Brief (filed July 15, 2015, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed May 15, 2015, "Ans."), and the original Specification (filed Mar. 24, 2011, "Spec."). 3 Appeal2015-006856 Application 13/071,151 3. Does Wikman teach "wherein the at least one monitoring client and the one or more accessing clients are peer clients of the proxy server," as recited in claim 10, and as similarly recited in claim 20? ANALYSIS Unless otherwise indicated, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons as set forth in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-14) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2- 11 ). For emphasis, we highlight specific arguments and findings as follows. Issue 1 Appellants argue Wikman fails to teach "a designation of at least one monitoring client of a proxy server," as recited in claim 1, because Wikman fails to teach a designation of a Hypertext Transfer Protocol ("HTTP") server of a mobile terminal as a monitoring client of a proxy gateway. See Appeal Br. 10. Appellants also argue Wikman fails to teach "wherein the at least one monitoring client manages, remotely from the proxy server, access to one or more resources of the proxy server by the one or more accessing clients," also recited in claim 1, because the claimed resources are resources of the proxy server and not resources of a mobile terminal, and Wikman only describes the proxy gateway as managing access to a requested resource of the mobile terminal. See id (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 2-5. The Examiner finds Wikman teaches a mobile terminal is configured to set access rights control rules for one or more clients of a proxy gateway. 4 Appeal2015-006856 Application 13/071,151 See Final Act. 4 (citing Wikman iii! 41--42); see also Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds Wikman teaches the mobile terminal remotely managing access control provided by the proxy gateway, where the proxy gateway controls access to resources of the HTTP server by clients via a network. See Final Act. 4--5 (citing Wikman iii! 9-11); see also Ans. 5. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Regarding "a designation of at least one monitoring client of a proxy server," we agree with the Examiner that Wikman teaches the configuration of a mobile terminal to set access rights control rules for one or more clients of a proxy gateway, and to subsequently send the access rights control rules to the proxy gateway. See Wikman iii! 41--42, 44. By configuring the mobile terminal to manage access rights control rules for the proxy gateway, Wikman's system also designates the mobile terminal as the claimed "monitoring client" of the proxy gateway. Regarding the limitation "wherein the at least one monitoring client manages, remotely from the proxy server, access to one or more resources of the proxy server by the one or more accessing clients," we agree with the Examiner that Wikman teaches the mobile terminal remotely manages access control provided by the proxy gateway, where the proxy gateway controls access to resources of the HTTP server by clients. See Wikman iii! 9-11, 41--42, 44. Contrary to Appellants' argument, we conclude that Wikman's resources of an HTTP server implemented by a mobile terminal teach the claimed "resources of the proxy server." Appellants' argument fails to either distinguish the claimed "resources of the proxy server" from Wikman's resources of the HTTP server, or refer to a limiting definition of "resources of the proxy server" in Appellants' claims or specification. In 5 Appeal2015-006856 Application 13/071,151 fact, Appellants' specification broadly describes a resource as "any content, service application, etc. available from [a] communication endpoint or other component of [a] communication network." See Spec. i-f 62. Thus, Appellants' specification supports the Examiner's interpretation of "resources of the proxy server" not being limited to resources located within the proxy server, and instead, including resources located at a remote location, such as a mobile terminal. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1and11under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Wikman. We further sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 9, 12-15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Wikman, and the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 6-8 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Wikman, Holloway, and Bracewell, which are not argued separately. 3 Issue 2 Appellants argue Wikman fails to teach "another input, from the at least one monitoring client, for specifying one or more access policies, one or more access lists, or a combination thereof with respect to the one or more resources," as recited in claim 2, because Wikman describes that a proxy gateway can service a plurality of HTTP servers on one or more mobile terminals via a reduced (or same) number of parameters, which renders another input unnecessary. See Appeal Br. 11-12. The Examiner finds that 3 Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 6-8 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are predicated upon Appellants' arguments regarding independent claims 1 and 11. See Appeal Br. 12-14. 6 Appeal2015-006856 Application 13/071,151 Wikman teaches a proxy gateway configured to receive a set of one or more access rights control rules from a mobile terminal, where the control rules define access rights to an HTTP server implemented in the mobile terminal for one or more clients, and where each client is identified in the control rules by an associated telephone number. See Final Act. 5 (citing Wikman i-f 10); see also Ans. 8. We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Wikman teaches the mobile terminal sends a set of access rights control rules to the proxy gateway, where the control rules define access rights to the HTTP server for one or more clients, and where the control rules also associate one or more telephone numbers with the one or more clients. See Wikman i-fi-1 10, 41, 44. Because the access rights define access policies for the proxy gateway, Wikman teaches the claimed "another input ... for specifying one or more access policies, one or more access lists, or a combination thereof with respect to the one or more resources. "4 Thus, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 4 The Examiner finds Wikman's control rules also teach the claimed "input for associating one or more accessing clients with the at least one monitoring client," recited in claim 1, because Wikman's control rules define one or more telephone numbers identifying one or more clients, and Appellants do not contest this finding. See Final Act. 4. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Wikman's control rules teach both the claimed "input for associating one or more accessing clients with the at least one monitoring client," recited in claim 1, and the claimed "another input, from the at least one monitoring client, for specifying one or more access policies, one or more access lists, or a combination thereof with respect to the one or more resources," recited in claim 2. 7 Appeal2015-006856 Application 13/071,151 Issue 3 Appellants argue Wikman fails to teach "wherein the at least one monitoring client and the one or more accessing clients are peer clients of the proxy server," as recited in claim 10, because Wikman makes no mention as to whether the mobile terminal is a peer client to the one or more clients. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner finds that Wikman teaches the aforementioned claim limitation because Wikman describes an entity capable of operating as a mobile terminal, where a proxy gateway and/or browser (i.e., client) are logically separated from the mobile terminal, but co-located with the mobile terminal within the entity. See Final Act. 7 (citing Wikman i-f 27). We find Appellants' argument persuasive. Wikman fails to identify or otherwise describe the mobile terminal and the browser (i.e., client) as peer clients. See, e.g., Wikman i-f 27. We conclude the Examiner's finding that Wikman teaches the mobile terminal and the browser can be co-located within an entity is not sufficient to establish that the mobile terminal and the browser are peer clients. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b ). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 9, 11-15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6-8 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 8 Appeal2015-006856 Application 13/071,151 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation