Asavie R&D Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 14, 2020

2019002197 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2020)

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.
15/244,074 08/23/2016 Thomas Maher 2055-032C 9838
27820 7590 07/14/2020
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
LE, CANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2020 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS MAHER
Appeal 2019-002197
Application 15/244,074
Technology Center 2400
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2–14, 17–20, 22, 23, and 26–29, which are all of the
claims pending in the application. 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(a). Appellant identifies Asavie Technologies Ltd. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002197
Application 15/244,074

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “secure network communication.” Spec.
Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 11 is illustrative and reproduced below (as amended after the
Final Office Action) with certain limitations at issue emphasized:
11. A data transmission system for secure data exchange
comprising:
a client computing device;
a broker computing device connected to the client
computing device via a first secure network link;
a server computing device;
an agent computing device connected to the server
computing device via a second secure network link and
connected to the broker computing device via an unsecured
network link; and
one or more of a firewall, a proxy, and a network address
translation (NAT) device connected between the broker
computing device and the agent computing device, wherein:
the agent computing device is configured to initiate
a secure control session with the broker computing device
over the unsecured network link;
the client computing device is configured to send a
control packet to the broker computing device via the first
secure network link;
in response to receipt of the control packet, the
broker computing device is configured to generate and
send a modified version of the control packet to the agent
computing device via the unsecured network link using the
secure control session;
in response to receipt of the modified version of the
control packet, the agent computing device is configured
Appeal 2019-002197
Application 15/244,074

3
to initiate a connection with the server computing device
via the second secure network link;
in response to establishment of the connection
between the agent computing device and the server
computing device, the agent computing device is
configured to initiate a secure data session with the broker
computing device via the unsecured network link and the
one or more of the firewall, the proxy, and the NAT
device; and
in response to establishment of the secure data
session between the agent computing device and the
broker computing device, the broker computing device is
configured to send a response to the control packet from
the client computing device such that a connection is
established between the client computing device and the
broker computing device.
REFERENCES & REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following references and rejections. The
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was withdrawn. See Advisory Act. (May 4,
2018).
Name Number Date
Shaw US 7,661,131 B1 Feb. 9, 2010
Shukla US 2002/0042875 A1 Apr. 11, 2002
Suzuyama US 2003/0028817 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
Xie US 7,107,612 B1 Sept. 12, 2006

Rejected Claims Statute Reference(s) Final Act.
11–14, 22, 23 § 102 Shukla 8–11
2, 3, 7 § 103 Shukla, Suzuyama, Xie 11–15
17–20, 26–29 § 103 Shukla, Suzuyama 15–17
4–6, 8–10 § 103 Shukla, Suzuyama, Xie, Shaw 18–20
Appeal 2019-002197
Application 15/244,074

4
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Shukla discloses “the agent
computing device is configured to initiate a secure control session with the
broker computing device over the unsecured network link,” as recited in
claim 11?
ANALYSIS
§ 102
Appellant argues that the claims require certain packets to flow in
opposite directions whereas the prior art Shukla teaches those packets
flowing in the same direction. Appeal Br. 10. To understand the claimed
directionality of packet flow, we briefly summarize the claimed components
and actions required, then turn to Appellant’s specific arguments.
The claims require four devices (client, broker, agent, and server)
connected by three networks (secure on both ends but insecure in the
middle), as can be seen in Figure 1 below.

“Figure 1 is a diagram that illustrates communication between a client
and a server” by way of a broker and agent. Spec. 4:17–26. The client is
connected to the broker via a secure network and the agent is connected to
Appeal 2019-002197
Application 15/244,074

5
the server via a secure network, but the broker and agent are connected via
an insecure network, such as the Internet. Id.
The claims require that the client, broker, and agent each send
particular data in a particular direction. Specifically, independent claim 11
recites (1) “the agent computing device is configured to initiate a secure
control session with the broker computing device over the unsecured
network link”; (2) “the client computing device is configured to send a
control packet to the broker computing device via the first secure network
link”; and (3) “in response to receipt of the control packet, the broker
computing device is configured to generate and send a modified version of
the control packet to the agent computing device via the unsecured network
link using the secure control session.”
The Examiner finds that Shukla discloses these limitations. Final Act.
8–10. The Examiner maps the components of Shukla to claim 11 as follows:
Claim 11 Shukla
Client End-host A (12)
Broker Gateway GA (17)
Agent Gateway GB (21)
Server End-host B (26)
Appellant argues that “Shukla describes a completely conventional
packet flow in which control and data sessions are initiated in the direction
from the first end host (12) towards the second end host (26), and never in
the opposite direction” whereas “Claim 11 requires a secure control session
that is established in the opposite direction.” Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner finds Shukla discloses this limitation because in
Shukla, “[t]he GB 21 (i.e. Agent), helps in establishing the secure link (i.e.
configured to initiate a secure control session) . . . as clearly show[n] in
Appeal 2019-002197
Application 15/244,074

6
paragraph 0074.” Ans. 4–5. The relevant portion of paragraph 74 in Shukla
states, “The gateways, GA 17 and GB 21, help in establishing the secure link
between the two end hosts A 12 and B 26 over the public network 19.”
We agree with Appellant. The fact that both gateways “help in
establishing the secure link” fails to sufficiently show which gateway
initiates the secure link, as required by claim 11. See Reply Br. 3 (“This
statement does not in any way indicate that the second gateway (21) could or
should initiate a secure control session with the first gateway (17).”).
The Examiner further finds that “there is no restriction or requirement
put[] on the Gateway GA (17) or the Gateway GB (21) [as to] which one is
Broker or Agent, and End-host A (12) or End-host B (26) [as to] which one
is Client or Server.” Ans. 5–6. However, we agree with Appellant that
“[r]egardless of how the various elements in Shukla are defined [i.e.,
whether the claimed agent is Gateway GA vs. GB], Shukla does not describe
a secure control session being established in one direction (i.e., server
towards client) and control packets to establish a connection for data being
sent in the opposite direction (i.e., client towards server).” Reply Br. 4.
Thus, the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that Shukla discloses the
claimed opposite directionality.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of
claims 11–14, 22, and 23.
§ 103
The Examiner does not rely on obviousness or the other references to
cure the deficiencies of Shukla discussed above. See Final Act. 11–20.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of
claims 2–10, 17–20, and 26–29.
Appeal 2019-002197
Application 15/244,074

7
DECISION
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected Statute Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
11–14, 22, 23 § 102 Shukla 11–14, 22, 23
2, 3, 7 § 103 Shukla, Suzuyama,
Xie
2, 3, 7
17–20, 26–29 § 103 Shukla, Suzuyama 17–20, 26–29
4–6, 8–10 § 103 Shukla, Suzuyama,
Xie, Shaw
4–6, 8–10
OVERALL 2–14, 17–20, 22, 23, 26–29
REVERSED