Ex Parte Baron

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 16, 2009

09886895 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 16, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CARL N. BARON
____________

Appeal 2008-005138
Application 09/886,895
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided:1 June 16, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and, ST.
JOHN COURTENAY, III, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-005138
Application 09/886,895

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from claims 1-3 and 5-7.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
A user may log into a remote computer 26 (Fig. 1) having a web
browser 28. Web server 20 on host PC 13 may publish the web site on the
Internet or Intranet 24. The web server 20 may restrict a user’s access to
web screens associated with controls (associated with controller 14) by
examining the IP (Internet Protocol) source address of the user’s
transmission. (Spec. 7:1 - 8:3.)

Representative Claim
1. A method of regulating network access to selected functions of a
controller of a machine, comprising:
coupling a controller of a machine to a network having a web server
configured to publish a plurality of web screens configured to control
selected functions of the controller, the controller being operatively coupled
to and independent of the web server;
publishing web screens on the network via the web server for receipt
by at least one remote computer coupled to the web server via the network;
identifying at the web server a network address of a user accessing the
web server via the network; and
restricting access of the user to selected published web screens of the
plurality of web screens published by the web server based upon the
identified address of the user.

Appeal 2008-005138
Application 09/886,895

3
Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability.
Papadopoulos US 6,282,454 B1 Aug. 28, 2001

Shannon US 6,233,618 B1 May 15, 2001

Claims and Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Papadopoulos and Shannon.
Claims 4 and 8 have been withdrawn from consideration due to a
requirement for restriction.
A rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 2).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

FINDINGS OF FACT
Papadopoulos
Papadopoulos describes an Internet web interface for a programmable
logic control system. Abstract.
Figure 2 depicts the web site 4 having a web server 30, which
provides the website home page. The web server 30 provides a direct
connection for a programmable logic controller (PLC) 32 to the Internet.
Col. 4, ll. 7-24.
Appeal 2008-005138
Application 09/886,895

4
Access to web server 30 is protected by a password and user list. Col.
4, ll. 16-21.

Shannon
Shannon teaches an access control technique for information content.
Abstract.
Access control may be provided by a software program on a network
device interconnected between a first and second computer network. The
network device may be a proxy server, bridge, router, or firewall. Col. 3, ll.
36-45.
In a preferred embodiment, network device 100 (Fig. 1; not labeled)
sits between LAN (local area network) 40 and WAN (wide area network;
e.g., Internet) 45. The network device serves as the “gateway” through
which all data communications must pass between networks 40 and 45. The
gateway may be located at an Internet service provider, or within a corporate
or other institutional environment. Col. 5, l. 51 - col. 6, l. 3.
Each client computer 50 through 53 (Fig. 1) is associated with a
machine address (e.g., Internet Protocol address) to identify the source of an
information request. Col. 7, ll. 1-40. See also Figure 3 data packet 300,
“Source” field 302.
For access control decisions, network device 100 is configured with
access control data stored in databases 203, 204, and 208 (Fig. 1). Col. 6, ll.
28-34.

Appeal 2008-005138
Application 09/886,895

5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing
the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than
one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quoting Sakraida
v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).

ANALYSIS
Appellant submits that in the claimed invention the access control
function is performed by the web server that publishes the web screens,
rather than an intermediate “gateway” device as taught by Shannon. (Br.
13.) Appellant further contends that incorporating the access control system
of Shannon into the control system of Papadopoulos would destroy “the
intended purpose and function” of Shannon. According to Appellant, the
“intended purpose and function” of Shannon is “to process requests from a
client prior to forwarding the request to a WAN for processing by a server.”
(Id.)
As identified in the foregoing Findings of Fact section, Shannon
teaches that access control may be managed by software on a network
device such as a proxy server, bridge, router, or firewall, which may reside
at an Internet service provider, or within a corporate or other institutional
environment. We therefore disagree that the “intended purpose and
function” of Shannon is to process requests from a client prior to forwarding
the request to a WAN.
Further, Papadopoulos teaches the safeguard, at the web server, of a
password and user list. The ordinary skilled artisan would have appreciated
Appeal 2008-005138
Application 09/886,895

6
that Shannon’s teachings with respect to an additional level of security
would be applicable to the Papadopoulos system. The access control
software taught by Shannon can reside at many different locations,
according to the express teachings of Shannon. The only practical limitation
is that the software be in a device positioned such that the software can
examine each data packet that is intended for the destination for which
access control is desired. We find nothing unexpected or surprising, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, that the examination may take place “at the web
server” as claimed. In other words, the invention as argued represents a
simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function
it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from
such an arrangement, and thus would have been obvious. See KSR, 550 U.S.
at 417.
We are therefore not persuaded of error in the rejection of instant
claim 1. We sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 3, and 5
through 7 fall with claim 1.

Appeal 2008-005138
Application 09/886,895

7
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Papadopoulos and Shannon 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).

AFFIRMED

erc

WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP (NORDSON)
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI OH 45202