Ex Parte Sainio et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2016

13071151 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2016)

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