Ex Parte Tammisalo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2019

14339527 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/339,527 07/24/2014 Toni Tammisalo
22907 7590 01/18/2019
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
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.
008351.00002 8204
EXAMINER
LE, THANHT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2019 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):
eofficeaction@bannerwitcoff.com
GPD@bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte TONI TAMMISALO and TATU J. YLONEN
Appeal 2018-004781
Application 14/339,527 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-10, 12-22, and 24--29. App. Br. 17-
21 (Claims App'x.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellants identify SSH Communications Security OYJ, as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 29, 2017, "App. Br."), the
Reply Brief (filed April 5, 2018, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer
(mailed February 7, 2018, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed June 8, 2017,
"Final Act)," and the Specification (filed July 24, 2014, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
Appeal 2018-004781
Application 14/339,527
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method and apparatus for generating a session
audit log display. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 17, 20, and 29 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative claim 1, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A method comprising:
capturing, by an intermediate data processing device
comprising a data capture entity, content of encrypted network
connections between client hosts and server hosts in a network
system to obtain audit log data in association with at least one
session in a computerized system,
generating data for a video presentation based on the
captured audit log data, and
causing display of the video presentation of at least a part
of the at least one session based on the generated data.
Lorenzetti
References and Rejections
US 2003/0151663 Al
US 2006/0227992 Al
US 2007/0124386 Al
US 2007/0168678 Al
US 2010/0322251 Al
US 2012/0102373 Al
US 2012/0221949 Al
US 2012/0324584 Al
US 2014/0282087 Al
Aug. 14, 2003
Oct. 12, 2006
May 31, 2007
July 19, 2007
Dec. 23, 2010
Apr. 26, 2012
Aug.30,2012
Dec. 20, 2012
Rathus
Klassen
Meenakshisundaram
Li
Waugh
Olsa
Al-Shaykh
Cioni Filed Mar. 12, 2013
2
Appeal 2018-004781
Application 14/339,527
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 20, 22, 24, 26, and 29 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Olsa,
Waugh, and Klassen. Final Act. 3-7, 18.
2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Olsa, Waugh, Klassen, and Cioni. Final Act. 8.
3. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Olsa, Waugh, Klassen, and Li. Final Act. 8-9.
4. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Olsa, Waugh, Klassen, and Al-Shaykh. Final Act.
9-10.
5. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Olsa, Waugh, Klassen, and Rathus. Final Act. 10-
1 1.
6. Claims 13 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Olsa, Waugh, Klassen, and Meenakshisundaram.
Final Act. 11-12, 18.
7. Claims 16, 17, 19, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Olsa, Waugh, Klassen, and
Lorenzetti. Final Act. 12-16, 18.
8. Claims 18 and 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Olsa, Waugh, Klassen, Cioni, and Lorenzetti.
Final Act. 17-18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-10, 12-22, and 24--29 in
light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider
3
Appeal 2018-004781
Application 14/339,527
Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief,
pages 5-16.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 20, 22, 24, 26, AND 29:
OBVIOUSNESS OVER 0LSA, WAUGH, AND KLASSEN.
Claims 1-10 and 12-16
Appellants argue these claims as a group in view of the limitations of
independent claim 1. App. Br. 16.
[CJ apturing ... content of encrypted network connections.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "capturing, by an intermediate data
processing device comprising a data capture entity, content of encrypted
network connections between client hosts and server hosts." Appellants
contend Olsa fails to teach a data logger that captures encrypted data. App.
Br. 9.
The Examiner finds Olsa teaches a capture tool, located between a
network and an application, to capture incoming and outgoing data of a
client terminal. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds the terminal is a "Secure
Shell" ("SSH") terminal. Id. The Examiner takes official notice ("[i]t is
known in the art ... ") "that in Secure Shell, traffic between the
communicating parties is protected with encryption algorithms." Id.
Appellants contend Olsa teaches two embodiments of data capture
tools, but that each embodiment only captures plaintext, not encrypted data.
App. Br. 8. Appellants argue SSH is not used within a terminal device,
rather, the encryption/tunnelling has to be removed before the operating
system and any applications and functions running within the terminal can
access the data. Id. at 9.
4
Appeal 2018-004781
Application 14/339,527
The Answer finds:
"SSH, also known as Secure Socket Shell, is a network protocol
that provides administrators with a secure way to access a
remote computer. SSH also refers to the suite of utilities that
implement the protocol. Secure Shell provides strong
authentication and secure encrypted data communications
between two computers connecting over an insecure network
such as the Internet."
Ans. 3 ( quoting http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/ definition/Secure-Shell)
( emphasis omitted). 3 The Examiner finds: "[t]herefore, it is clearly known
that devices or terminals using SSH exchange encrypted data." Ans. 3.
Appellants quote Olsa: "'SSH is a network protocol ... that allow[s]
data to be exchanged using a secure channel between the networked
devices."' Reply Br. 2 (quoting Olsa ,r 24). But, Appellants argue "SSH is
of no use within a terminal, and is not involved in internal processing within
a terminal of terminal data, as the Office appears to assert." Id. According
to Appellants, the "capture tool" described in Olsa has no access to the
network protocol, and only accesses data after it has been received by the
terminal and after the SSH encryption has been removed. Id.
Olsa discloses neither encryption nor decryption. Olsa discloses:
The incoming data represents the data input by the user in the
terminal during the terminal session and the outgoing data
represents the output data of the terminal being provided to the
user during the terminal session. The terminal data logger
stores the captured data in a data store to allow the terminal
session to be recreated via an administrator interface that is
separate from the terminal.
Olsa ,r 13. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand that an
ordinary user would input encrypted data. Olsa does not disclose encrypted
3 The techtarget.com website refers to an undated blog.
5
Appeal 2018-004781
Application 14/339,527
data, but without so explicitly finding, the Examiner appears to rely upon
inherency to supply the missing inherency limitation. Ans. 3. ("Olsa
discloses the capture tool captures all terminal data, including incoming and
outgoing data").
Although inherency can supply a missing claim limitation in an
obviousness analysis, the limitation at issue necessarily must be present to
be inherently disclosed in a reference. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI
Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194--96 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, even where
encrypted data may be transmitted over the internet, it is not been shown that
inherently the server and the terminal operate on encrypted data. See Olsa ,r
13 ("The incoming data represents the data input by the user").
i -~~~:;;;:ti,· ........... .
,-.,-! .. :~~'.':'_': ....
(-.l \
( ~ ;,,.,':[:." j ';,~-:;~·;;~:. •-{
',""·\"_.,-.. ")--·--- .,.._.,. --•I C·t=.NF~Rr.,-:·:.::.-::.:,.,:
:.}f:'v~C~:·
F!G.t>
Olsa's Figure 5 illustrates a diagrammatic representation of a machine
in the exemplary form of a computing system for terminal data logging.
6
Appeal 2018-004781
Application 14/339,527
Olsa discloses in Figure 5 a diagrammatic representation of a machine
in the exemplary form of a computing system for terminal data logging the
machine may operate as a server or client. Olsa ,r 42. Figure 5 illustrates
many of the devices that may optionally comprise the machine. Id. Olsa
discloses the machine may be networked to other machines in a LAN, an
intranet, an extranet, or the Internet. Id. Figure 5 shows a network
connected to "network interface device 522." Appellants contend
[t]here is no evidence or suggestion in Olsa that SSH would be
used within a terminal device, or that the terminal data logger of
Olsa would capture and process encrypted data before SSH
tunnelling has been removed from incoming data, or after the
SSH protocol has been applied to outgoing data.
App. Br. 9. We agree. Device 512 is described as a keyboard (Olga ,r 45)
with no suggestion that data is encrypted prior to its application to the bus.
Similarly, there is no disclosure that any device attached to the bus applies
or accepts encrypted data.
We find no evidence Olsa teaches "capturing ... content of encrypted
network connections," as recited in independent claim 1. Independent
claims 17, 20, and 29 contain commensurate limitations. Therefore, we
decline to sustain the rejections of claims 1-10, 12-22, and 24--29.
7
Appeal 2018-004781
Application 14/339,527
DECISI0N4
The rejection of claims 1-10, 12-22, and 24--29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
4 Because we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10, 12-22,
and 24--29 for the reasons discussed supra, we need not address Appellants'
additional arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (Finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a
decision based on "a single dispositive issue.").
8