Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2021

2020000246 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2021)

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2 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 was withdrawn.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