Ex Parte Williamson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 2012

11004349 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MATTHEW MURRAY WILLIAMSON, ANDREW PATRICK NORMAN, and JONATHAN GRIFFIN ____________ Appeal 2010-005445 Application 11/004,349 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention administers a network with user and administrator entities by evaluating user-entity operation parameters. If a parameter lies outside a predetermined range indicating abnormal behavior, a secure connection is enabled for administrative authentication. See generally Abstract; Spec. 9-10; Fig. 7. Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal 2010-005445 Application 11/004,349 2 1. A method of administering a network having a user and an administrator entity, the method comprising the steps of: operating the user entity to enable administrative access for the administrative entity via network using a secure connection; operating the user entity to disable the secure connection; evaluating, at the user entity, one more parameters of operation of one or more functional elements of the user entity; and if a parameter lies outside a predetermined range indicating that abnormal behavior has been detected by the user entity, operating the user entity to enable the secure connection, whereas the user entity maintains the disabled secure connection when a parameter lies inside the predetermined range indicating that the user entity is operating normally. THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okigami (US 6,401,116 B1; June 4, 2002), Appellants’ admitted prior art (“APA”), and Watkinson (US 2004/0243707 A1; Dec. 2, 2004). Ans. 3-9.1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okigami, APA, Watkinson, and Schmidt (US 5,826,015; Oct. 20, 1998). Ans. 9-10. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 11-13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okigami, APA, Watkinson, and Brownell (US 6,336,147 Bl; Jan. l, 2002). Ans. 10-11. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 17, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 2, 2009; and (3) the Reply Brief filed December 1, 2009. Appeal 2010-005445 Application 11/004,349 3 4. The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okigami, APA, Watkinson, Brownell, and Friedman (US 2005/0027818 Al; Feb. 3, 2005 (filed Feb. 2, 2004)). Ans. 11-12. 5. The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okigami and Watkinson. Ans. 12-13. 6. The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okigami, Watkinson, and APA. Ans. 13-14. 7. The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okigami, Watkinson, and Schmidt. Ans. 14. 8. The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Okigami, Watkinson, and Brownell. Ans. 14-15. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER OKIGAMI, APA, AND WATKINSON The Examiner finds that Okigami’s network administration method has every recited feature of representative claim 1 including enabling an Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) connection responsive to detecting that a parameter lies outside a predetermined range indicating abnormal behavior (i.e., trouble), but otherwise disabling the connection. Ans. 3-5, 16-17. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Okigami lacks a secure connection, the Examiner cites APA for teaching this feature and Watkinson for teaching selecting secure connections via a firewall in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Id. Appellants argue that Okigami does not disable and enable a secure connection for normal and abnormal behavior, respectively, as claimed, but rather uses the same security level to connect with a network connected device independent of detecting normal or abnormal behavior. App. Appeal 2010-005445 Application 11/004,349 4 Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 3-4. Appellants add that Okigami does not establish HTTP connections only when trouble is detected as the Examiner asserts, let alone allow communication according to stated conditions, and APA and Watkinson do not cure Okigami’s deficiencies. Id. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Okigami, APA, and Watkinson collectively would have taught or suggested operating a user entity to (1) enable a secure connection if a parameter lies outside a predetermined range indicating detected abnormal behavior, and (2) maintain a disabled secure connection when a parameter lies inside a predetermined range indicating normal user entity operation? ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 3-6 On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1. Okigami’s network connected device 5 (e.g., a printer) has a communication section 12 that (1) detects trouble with the device (e.g., the printer lacks toner or paper, device faults, etc.); (2) generates HTTP data corresponding to the detected trouble; and (3) sends this data to network management server 6 via an intranet, as well as trouble and parts management servers 8, 9 via the internet. Okigami, col. 4, l. 8 – col. 6, l. 33; col. 8, l. 24 – col. 9, l. 60; Figs. 1-2(b), 4, 7. Based on this functionality, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Okigami at least suggests establishing an HTTP connection to the trouble management server only when trouble is detected. Ans. 4, 16-17. Appeal 2010-005445 Application 11/004,349 5 Even assuming, without deciding, that communications between the network connected device and the servers in Okigami’s Figure 1 uses the same security level regardless of whether an abnormality is detected as Appellants contend (App. Br. 9), Okigami nonetheless at least suggests establishing an HTTP connection to those servers to notify them of detected abnormal behavior as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 4, 16-17. Since Okigami so notifies these servers with HTTP data that is sent via an intranet and the internet as noted above, skilled artisans would recognize that an HTTP connection is established between the device and servers to route and transfer that data. And as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 16-17), if no trouble is detected (i.e., operation is normal), then there is no abnormality notification—and therefore no associated HTTP connection. That Okigami’s process ends when no trouble is detected, as the Examiner indicates, only bolsters this conclusion. See Ans. 4, 16 (citing Okigami, col. 8, ll. 34-35; Fig. 7 (“NO” condition for step S1)). To the extent that Appellants argue that Okigami does not determine abnormalities according to whether parameters are within a predetermined range (See App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 3-4), such arguments are unavailing, for Okigami’s trouble-detecting task (e.g., error task) at least suggests some sort of comparison with a predetermined threshold to determine abnormalities. See Okigami, col. 4, ll. 48-60; col. 5, ll. 47-49; col. 8, ll. 29-33. Even assuming, without deciding, that this detection is limited to a threshold-based comparison, skilled artisans would nonetheless recognize that such comparisons at least suggest those involving predetermined ranges. Lastly, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on APA merely to show that providing secure connections in lieu of Okigami’s unsecure HTTP Appeal 2010-005445 Application 11/004,349 6 connections established responsive to detected abnormalities would have been obvious. Ans. 4-5, 17. Such an enhancement predictably uses prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Watkinson for the limited purpose indicated by the Examiner. Ans. 5, 16-17. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1, and claims 3-6 not separately argued with particularity. Claims 7, 9, 10, 14, and 18 Although Appellants nominally argue claims 7, 9, 10, 14, and 18 separately, Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with claim 1 which we find unpersuasive for the reasons noted above. App. Br. 12-15, 17-20. The Examiner’s rejection of these claims is therefore sustained. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2, 8, 11-13, 15-17, and 19-23. Ans. 9-15, 17-24. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with claim 1 and allege that the additional cited references fail to cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 11-24; Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons previously discussed. Appeal 2010-005445 Application 11/004,349 7 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-23 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-23 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rwk