Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13461158 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

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.
13/461,158 05/01/2012 Wayne B. Smith GCSD-2517 1005
68085 7590 12/02/2016
HARRIS CORPORATION
C/O FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP
997 Lenox Drive
Building 3
Lawrenceville, NJ 08543-5231
EXAMINER
SHAW, BRIAN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
ipdocket @ foxrothschild. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAYNE B. SMITH and RYAN E. SHARPE1
Appeal 2016-002289
Application 13/461,158
Technology Center 2400
Before: BRUCE R. WINSOR, AMBER L. HAGY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all of the claims pending
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants’ Brief (Br.) identifies the real party in interest as HARRIS
CORPORATION.
Appeal 2016-002289
Application 13/461,158
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to firewalls for filtering communications in a
dynamic computer network. Claim 1, reproduced below with the key
limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of filtering data communications in a
dynamic computer network, the method comprising:
receiving a data packet that includes a plurality of identity
parameters; and
filtering said data packet by comparing said plurality of
identity parameters to a set of filtering rules, wherein said
filtering rules comprise allowing said data packet on a condition
that a first set of said identity parameters have been transformed
using pseudorandom function to specify false identity parameters
that are within a set of currently allowed false identity parameters
determined based on a mission plan, where a seed value for said
pseudorandom function comprises an occurrence time of a
trigger event for triggering identity parameter transformation.
Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 11, 12, 14—16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Blaisdell et al. (US 2008/0235755 Al,
published Sep. 25, 2008) (“Blaisdell”), Phatak (US 2009/0031042 Al,
published Jan. 29, 2009), Burnham et al. (US 2013/0104228 Al, published
Apr. 25, 2013) (“Burnham”), and Xiao et al. (US 2010/0246823 Al,
published Sep. 30, 2010) (“Xiao”).
Claims 3, 7—10, 13, and 17—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Blaisdell, Phatak, Burnham, Xiao, and Nakae
et al. (US 2004/0172557 Al, published Sep. 2, 2004).
2
Appeal 2016-002289
Application 13/461,158
ISSUES FOR DECISION
(1) Has the Examiner erred in finding that the cited combination
teaches or suggests the limitation of “where a seed value for said
pseudorandom function comprises an occurrence time of a trigger event for
triggering identity parameter transformation” as recited in independent
claims 1 and 11?
(2) Has the Examiner erred in finding the references are properly
combinable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants’ arguments and contentions (Br. 10-
13) in light of the findings (Non-Final Act.2 4—15), conclusions {id.), and
explanations (Non-Final Act. 2—3) of the Examiner. We agree with the
findings and conclusions of the Examiner and adopt them as our own. We
provide the following discussion, findings, and conclusions for emphasis.
First Issue
In rejecting the independent claims as unpatentable under Section 103,
the Examiner finds that Appellants provide “no limiting definition of trigger
event, and the common use of the phrase is broad enough to encompass a
wide range of events, including those suggested by the prior art of record.”
Non-Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds Blaisdell teaches the use of various types of
trigger events, including “timer triggers (e.g., time of day, day of week,
etc.).” Non-Final Act. 6 (quoting Blaisdell 133). The Examiner further
finds Blaisdell teaches timer triggers are used for the purpose of
2 Non-Final Office Action issued September 18, 2014.
3
Appeal 2016-002289
Application 13/461,158
transforming identity parameters of data packets in a network. Non-Final
Act. 6 (citing Blaisdell ]Hf 8, 10, 23, Fig. 5). The Examiner recognizes that
Blaisdell does not teach using the time of day trigger as a seed value for a
pseudorandom function. Non-Final Act. 6—7. The Examiner finds that
Phatak (| 109), Burnham (| 26), and Xiao (110) suggest the use of time-
based seed values for pseudorandom functions. Non-Final Act. 7—15. Thus,
as explained by the Examiner, Phatak, Burnham, and Xiao suggest using a
time as “a seed value for said pseudorandom function” and Blaisdell teaches
the use of “an occurrence time of a trigger event for triggering identity
parameter transformation.” Non-Final Act. 2—3, 14—15. Taken together, the
combination of references teach or suggest “where a seed value for said
pseudorandom function comprises an occurrence of time of a trigger event
for triggering identity parameter transformation.” Non-Final Act. 14—15.
Appellants argue the cited references do not teach “where a seed value
for said pseudorandom function comprises an occurrence time of a trigger
event for triggering identity parameter transformation.” Br. 10—13. In doing
so, Appellants address each reference separately. With respect to Blaisdell,
Appellants argue that the occurrence times of Blaisdell’s trigger events are
not used as seed values for pseudorandom functions. Br. 10. With respect
to Phatak, Appellants argue it does not teach any time-based value being the
occurrence time of a trigger event. Br. 10-11. Appellants also dispute the
relevance of Burnham, arguing it does not mention pseudorandom functions.
Br. 11. With respect to Xiao, Appellants acknowledge that it teaches the use
of a pseudo-random function with a timestamp as a seed value, but contend
it does not meet the disputed limitation because it is silent as to what the
timestamp refers. Br. 11—12.
4
Appeal 2016-002289
Application 13/461,158
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments, and we conclude that
Appellants’ argument does not address the actual reasoning of the
Examiner’s rejection. Appellants attack each reference singly for lacking a
teaching that the Examiner relied on the combination of references to show.
It is well established that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
We agree with the Examiner that the phrase “trigger event” is a broad
term. The Specification describes a trigger as “an event that causes a change
to occur in relation to the dynamic modifications described herein.” Spec.
146. The Specification further notes “[i]n its simplest form a trigger can be
user activated or based on a simple timing scheme. . . . For example, a
trigger event could be defined as occurring at the expiration of every 60
second time interval.” Spec. 147. We further note the timer triggers taught
in Blaisdell are substantially the same as the simple timing scheme described
in paragraph 47 of Appellants’ Specification. We, therefore, are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Blaisdell teaches the use of “an
occurrence time of a trigger event for triggering identity parameter
transformation.”
We are also not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that
Phatak, Burnham, and Xiao suggest using a time as “a seed value for said
pseudorandom function.” In particular, Phatak teaches the use of spread-
identity network address translation (SI-NAT) for improving network
security. Phatak 110. Phatak specifically describes “making the bindings
for outgoing SI-NAT a pseudorandom function of day/time.” Phatak 1109.
Similarly, Xiao teaches the use of a time stamp as the seed value in a
5
Appeal 2016-002289
Application 13/461,158
pseudo-random function in the context of securing network communications.
Xiao 8, 10 (“the seed value may be a time stamp”), and 21.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s finding that the cited prior art
teaches or suggests the limitation of “where a seed value for said
pseudorandom function comprises an occurrence time of a trigger event for
triggering identity parameter transformation.”
Second Issue
Appellants also challenge the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness
as being based on an unsupported combination of references. Appellants
argue, “Notably, there is no motivation in any of the cited references for
modifying the inventions thereof in view of each other so as to obtain the
present invention, as suggested by the Examiner.” Br. 12. The Supreme
Court instructs us “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or
by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents.” KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419
(2007). We recognize the Examiner must articulate “reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, the Examiner’s
reasoning need not appear in, or be suggested by, one or more of the
references on which the Examiner relies. Instead, a reason to combine
teachings from the prior art “may be found in explicit or implicit teachings
within the references themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those
skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved.” WMS
Gaming Inc. v. Inti Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
6
Appeal 2016-002289
Application 13/461,158
We note that, with respect to each secondary reference, the Examiner
provides an articulated rationale for combining the various references. See,
e.g., Non-Final Act. 12 (articulating rationale for combining Phatak), 13
(Burnham), and 14 (Xiao). However, Appellants do not address with
specificity any articulated rationale provided by the Examiner. The
conclusory allegation put forth by Appellants does not apprise us of
Examiner error. In particular, Appellants have not provided persuasive
evidence or line of reasoning explaining why such rationale is erroneous or
why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached the
conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Summary
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of independent claims 1 and 11. We also sustain the rejections of
claims 2—10 and 12—20, which Appellants do not argue separately.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7