Amazon Technologies, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 23, 20212020000246 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/632,166 06/23/2017 Mark Edward Stalzer 0097749-052US1 4758 113507 7590 03/23/2021 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP - ATI IP Docketing Dept. 920 Fifth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 EXAMINER JAMSHIDI, GHODRAT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2493 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2021 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): amznpatents@dwt.com patentdocket@dwt.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK EDWARD STALZER and CHRISTIAN ARTHUR ARLLEN Appeal 2020-000246 Application 15/632,166 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5 and 7–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant indicates the real party in interest is Amazon Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. 2 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 was withdrawn. Ans. 3. Appeal 2020-000246 Application 15,632,166 2 BACKGROUND The disclosed invention relates to the authentication of a direct physical connection between a network operated by a customer and a computing resource service provider. See Spec. ¶ 16. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, which is representative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, at a network device of a computing resource service provider connected to a computer resource service provider network, cryptographic authentication information through a dedicated physical network connection established between the network device and a customer network device that is connected to a customer network separate from the computer resource service provider network; obtaining, from an authentication service operable to verify authentication information, verification that the cryptographic authentication information received is authentic based at least in part on a key of a customer associated with the customer network device; and as a result of the authentication service successfully verifying the cryptographic authentication information, causing the network device to route network traffic received from the customer network device over the dedicated physical network connection to one or more services of the computing resource service provider different from the authentication service. Appeal 2020-000246 Application 15,632,166 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Weiss et al. (“Weiss”) US 5,361,062 Nov. 1, 1994 Rosati et al. (“Rosati”) US 2013/0046976 A1 Feb. 21, 2013 Ong et al. (“Ong”) US 2014/0068721 A1 Mar. 6, 2014 Murphy US 2014/0157298 A1 June 5, 2014 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL3 Claims 1–5, 7, 10–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosati and Murphy. Final Act. 6–15. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosati, Murphy, and Weiss. Final Act. 17–18. Claims 14 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosati, Murphy, and Ong. Final Act. 18–20. ANALYSIS Unpatentability of Claims 1–5, 7, 10–13, 15, 16, and 18–12 Appellant argues claims 1–5, 7, 10–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 together as a group. See Appeal Br. 10–16; Reply Br. 2–13. Consequently, we choose independent claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner’s Answer. Appellant’s arguments persuade us of Examiner 3 The Final Office Action includes a rejection of claim 1 on the basis of non- statutory obviousness-type double patenting. Final Act. 4–5. Appellant subsequently filed a terminal disclaimer to obviate this rejection. See Reply Br. 2 n.1. Therefore, we understand this non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection to be moot. The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was withdrawn. See Ans. 3. Appeal 2020-000246 Application 15,632,166 4 error. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. Figure 1 of Rosati is reproduced below: Figure 1 is a diagram of a communication system for accessing a private network using a mobile device accessible over a public network. See Rosati ¶ 7. The Examiner finds that Rosati teaches receiving, at a network device of a computing resource service provider connected to a computer resource service provider network[,] cryptographic authentication information through a physical network connection established between the network device and a customer network device that is connected to a customer network separate from the computer resource service provider network based on Rosati’s disclosure of Virtual Private Network (VPN) Gateway 6 that receives cryptographic authentication information from computing device 4 that is connected to public network 8 separate from private Appeal 2020-000246 Application 15,632,166 5 network 2. Final Act. 6–7 (citing Rosati ¶ 27, Figs. 1, 9). The Examiner acknowledges that Rosati does not explicitly teach a dedicated network connection, and relies on Murphy’s teachings of a permanent virtual circuit, secure virtual circuit, stream control transmission protocol connection, or a VPN for teaching a dedicated network connection. See id. at 7 (citing Murphy ¶ 31). The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rosati and incorporate Murphy to meet the preceding limitations” and “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time the instant invention was filed and would be applied to enhance security of the communication.” Id. at 7–8. Appellant argues that Rosati does not teach or suggest the features for which it was cited because Rosati only teaches computing device 4 requesting access to private network 2 through public network 8, at which point VPN gateway 6, a node in private network 2, initiates authentication with the authentication server 12. See Appeal Br. 11–12 (reproducing Rosati Fig. 1; citing Rosati ¶ 27). Appellant points out that Rosati discloses that a customer device accesses public network 8 “via ‘various protocols and utilizing various interfaces, for example, a wide area network (WAN), a local area network (LAN), a personal area network (PAN), direct wired, or wireless link.’” Appeal Br. 12 (quoting Rosati ¶ 25). Appellant contends that Rosati is silent regarding a dedicated physical connection between computing device 4 and private network 2 of the service provider. See id. Appellant further contends that Rosati does not teach or suggest the elements of claim 1 because Rosati only transmits packets through a public network between computing device 4 and VPN gateway rather than transmitting Appeal 2020-000246 Application 15,632,166 6 cryptographic authentication information through a dedicated physical network connection established between the network device and customer network device. See id. at 13. Appellant further argues, referencing the Examiner’s position in the Advisory Action, that paragraphs 25 and 26 and the Abstract of Rosati only disclose a computing device can be connected to a public network through a direct wired link. Appellant contends that Rosati’s public network 8 does not teach or suggest receiving cryptographic authentication information through a dedicated physical network connection, nor is Rosati’s VPN gateway 6 a dedicated physical network connection. Lastly, Appellant contends that Murphy does not remedy the deficiencies of Rosati. See id. at 13–14. In the Answer, the Examiner finds that the cited portions of Rosati explicitly disclose the use of a wired connection. See Ans. 4. Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of Examiner error. In particular, we agree with Appellant that Rosati does not teach or suggest transmitting cryptographic authentication information through a dedicated physical network connection established between the network device and customer network device. This is because Rosati only transmits packets (i.e., not cryptographic authentication information) through a public network between computing device 4 and VPN gateway 6, and there is only a direct wired link between computing device 4 and public network 8. See Rosati ¶¶ 25–27, Fig. 1. The Examiner presents additional positions in the Answer that were not presented in the Final Office Action. Compare Ans. 4, with Final Act. 6–15. The Examiner additionally finds that Rosati discloses the VPN client 20 of computing device 4, using a direct wired connection, routes challenge and response in stages 5 and 6 through public network 8 between Appeal 2020-000246 Application 15,632,166 7 computing device 4 and VPN gateway 6. See Ans. 4 (citing Rosati ¶ 34, Fig. 2). The Examiner asserts that the communicated data is cryptographic authentication data because the challenge/response go through cryptographic modules of the mobile device 10 and authentication server 12. See id. (citing Rosati ¶ 41, Figs. 1, 2, 8). In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s position in the Answer relying on Figure 2 and paragraph 34 of Rosati is procedurally and substantively defective as an undesignated new ground of rejection because it is completely unrelated to the claim interpretation rationale of the stated rejections. See Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that the Examiner for the first time relies on a direct wired connection disclosed in Rosati Figure 2 and paragraph 34 and contends that it is analogous to the “dedicated physical network connection.” See Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s position regarding Rosati is procedurally and substantively defective as an undesignated new ground of rejection because it is completely unrelated to the claim interpretation and rationale of the stated rejections. See id. Appellant contends the Board should decline to consider the new rationale as it did in Ex Parte Yudoovsky, Appeal No. 2011-006328 (BPAI Feb. 16, 2012). See id. We are not persuaded that it would be improper to consider the Examiner’s new rationale. Generally, if an appellant believes an examiner’s answer contains an undesignated new ground of rejection, the appellant has two options. If the appellant desires to maintain the appeal and provide arguments for review and consideration by Board responsive to the examiner’s answer, the appellant can file a reply brief under 37 C.F.R. § 41.41. If, however, the appellant desires to reopen prosecution, the appellant may file a petition to the Director under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 seeking Appeal 2020-000246 Application 15,632,166 8 review of the examiner’s failure to designate a rejection as a new ground of rejection in an examiner’s answer. The filing of such a petition puts the appeal on hold, and the petition is routed to a Technology Center Director for review and decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a) (tolling of time period for reply brief) and MPEP § 1002.02(c) (delegation of Director’s authority to decide such petition to the Technology Center Director). Failure of an appellant to timely file a petition seeking review of the examiner’s failure to designate a rejection as a new ground of rejection in an examiner’s answer waives any arguments that a rejection must be designated as a new ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a). Here, because Appellant did not file a petition to the Director seeking review of an undesignated new ground of rejection, we conclude Appellant waives the argument that the rejection must be designated as a new ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a). Appellant also argues that, even if the Board considers the new ground of rejection, the new ground fails to establish that the claims are unpatentable under § 103. See Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that the position in the Answer maps a direct wired connection in Rosati as between two user devices––computing device 4 and mobile device 10 via an I/O module—to the recited dedicated physical network connection. See id. at 4–5 (reproducing Rosati Fig. 2 with annotation). Appellant contends that paragraph 34 of Rosati discloses that computing device 4 may route a challenge and a response in stages 5 and 6 to mobile computing device 10 by a short range communication module or through an I/O module, e.g., a direct wired connection. See id. at 5–6 (reproducing Rosati Fig. 4; quoting Rosati ¶ 34). Appellant contends that the user’s computing device in Rosati is connected to a public network not a network device of the provider. See id. at 6. Appeal 2020-000246 Application 15,632,166 9 We agree with Appellant’s arguments because paragraph 34, relied upon by the Examiner, discloses a direct wired connection between VPN client 20 of computing device 4 and mobile device 10. See Rosati ¶ 34, Fig. 4. Accordingly, the Examiner’s new position fails to show that Rosati teaches or suggests receiving, at VPN Gateway 6, cryptographic authentication information through a dedicated physical network connection established between VPN Gateway 6 and computing device 4. For at least these reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–5, 7, 10–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 10–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Unpatentability of Claims 8, 9, 14, and 17 As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Weiss and Ong do not remedy the deficiencies of Rosati. See Final Act. 17–20. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosati, Murphy, and Weiss, and the rejection of claims 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rosati, Murphy, and Ong. Appeal 2020-000246 Application 15,632,166 10 CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5 and 7–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7, 10–13, 15, 16, 18–20 103 Rosati, Murphy 1–5, 7, 10–13, 15, 16, 18–20 8, 9 103 Rosati, Murphy, Weiss 8, 9 14, 17 103 Rosati, Murphy, Ong 14, 17 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation