Ex Parte Wei et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

14087791 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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.
14/087,791 11/22/2013 Shaohong Wei FOR-112C4 1095
88268 7590 12/21/2016
T aw Offioe of Dorian Partwriaht
EXAMINER
P.O. Box 7617
San Jose, CA 95150
HARPER, KEVIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
uspto@cartwrightesq.com
vibrantnet @yahoo.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAOHONG WEI, ZHONG QIANG CHEN,
PING NG, and GANG DUAN1
Appeal 2016-003398
Application 14/087,791
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—35 and 38—56, all of the pending claims in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to systems, methods and software for
classifying content of computer and network traffic. Spec. 12, Abstract.
1 Appellants indicate the real party in-interest is Fortinet, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003398
Application 14/087,791
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics)'.
1. A method for determining a type of content, comprising:
receiving a first packet of a session with which the first
packet is associated, the first packet received in a data
classification module via a communication interface coupled to
a network link;
determining, in the data classification module, a potential
state of classification for the first packet of the session, a
determined potential classification indicating that at least one
classification candidate has been ruled out;
receiving a second packet of the session, the second
packet received in the data classification module via the
communication interface coupled to the network link;
determining, in the data classification module, a content
type for the second packet based at least in part on the
determined potential state of classification for the first packet of
the session without consideration of the at least one
classification candidate that has been ruled out; and
wherein packets associated with the session are
transmitted by a sender via a data network to which the network
link is connected to a receiver and at least the first and second
packets are processed by the data classification module after
transmission by the sender and prior to receipt by the receiver.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
Claims 1—12, 14—30, 32—35, 38—50, and 52—56 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Brandyburg et al. (US 2007/0011317
Al; Jan. 11, 2007) (“Brandyburg”).
2 The rejection and the provisional rejection of claims 1—35 and 38—56 as
unpatentable on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double
patenting (see Final Act. 3—4) was rendered moot by the filing of a terminal
disclaimers and payment of the terminal disclaimer fees. Terminal
Disclaimer Review Decisions (Jan. 25, 2016).
2
Appeal 2016-003398
Application 14/087,791
Claims 13, 31, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brandyburg, Yoakum et al. (US 2014/0198632 Al; July
17, 2014) (“Yoakum”) and Yung et al. (US 7,664,048 Bl, Feb. 16, 2010)
(“Yung”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Brief, the Answer, and the Reply Brief. We are persuaded
by Appellants’ arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments below for emphasis.
The Examiner finds Brandyburg describes “determining, in the data
classification module, a potential state of classification for the first packet of
the session, a determined potential classification indicating that at least one
classification candidate has been ruled out,” as recited in claim 1 based on
Brandyburg’s disclosure of steps 425, 430, and 435 of Figure 5A. See Final
Act. 6. Specifically, the Examiner explains that at step 425 an application is
potentially either a custom application, a known application from the table,
or an unknown “other IP” application, and that decision NO at step 430 rules
out a custom application. See id. The Examiner further finds Brandyburg
discloses “determining, in the data classification module, a content type for
the second packet based at least in part on the determined potential state of
classification for the first packet of the session without consideration of the
at least one classification candidate that has been ruled out,” as recited in
claim 1 based on the following explanation:
[Sjtep 420, YES; note: the first packet is eventually classified
and that classification is used to classify the second packet;
para. 48, first sentence; fig. 5B, all steps; note: port hopping for
3
Appeal 2016-003398
Application 14/087,791
a flow and determining a child application for a flow based on
subsequent packets; note: at step 435 a custom app has been
ruled out at step 425 and is not considered a candidate among
an app from the well-known ports and “other IP” apps.
Id. at 6; see also Ans. 2—3 (also discussing Brandyburg Figures 5 A—
5B).
We agree with Appellants’ argument that “there is no description . . .
in Brandyburg where a potential classification of one packet that rules out at
least one possible classification is taken into account in classifying a
subsequently received packet.” App. Br. 11. We further agree with
Appellants that the YES/NO decisions at 420, 425, and 435 of Figure 5A of
Brandyburg “are only with regard to a single packet and are performed with
regard to each packet of an unclassified session regardless of what decisions
were made in processing other packets.” Id. We agree also with Appellants’
following argument:
At best, block 435 may be bypassed if a prior classification was
in the affirmative and specific with regard to only a single
possible classification such as by following the YES routes
from both decisions of blocks 425 and 430 in FIG 5 A of
Brandyburg, but this fails to skip consideration of a potential
classification with regard to a current packet based on ruling out
the skipped potential classification with regard to a previous
packet.
Id.
For these reasons we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claim
1, and independent claims 19 and 39 which recite similar limitations, and
claims 2—12, 14—18, 20-30, 32—38, 40-50, and 52—56 dependent therefrom
as anticipated by Brandyburg. As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of
Yoakum and Yung do not remedy the deficiencies of Brandyburg. See Final
4
Appeal 2016-003398
Application 14/087,791
Act. 7—8. Accordingly, for the same reasons as claims 1—12, 14—30, 32—35,
38—50 and 52—56, we reverse the rejection of claims 13, 31, and 51 as
unpatentable over Brandyburg, Yoakum, and Yung.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1—35 and 38—56.
REVERSED
5