Ex Parte Bernoth

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2017

11050187 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2017)

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.
11/050,187 02/03/2005 Andrew John Bernoth END920040137US1 1180
37945 7590 03/13/2017
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. KYLE, TAMARA TESLOVICH
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2017 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):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW JOHN BERNOTH
Appeal 2015-005019
Application 11/050,187
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MARC S. HOFF, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In an earlier Decision involving the instant application and the Frattura
reference {infra), Ex Parte Appeal 2010-002166 mailed July 3, 2012 (the “Prior
Decision”), we affirmed the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—21 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Frattura. We denied Appellant’s
Request for Rehearing filed August 2, 2012 in our Decision On Request For
Rehearing mailed August 29, 2012.
Appeal 2015-005019
Application 11/050,187
In this appeal, Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of
the Examiner’s Final Decision rejecting claims 1—21, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. See Final Act. 1; App. Br. 9.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns computer program
products, systems, and methods for managing security policies of computing
devices of a network, specifically, determining whether a message flow rule
of a firewall specifies a combination of a source IP address, source port,
protocol, destination IP address, and destination port which permits passing
of the message packet to the port of the destination IP address. Spec. 1, 6—7;
Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for managing a security policy of a firewall, the
firewall receiving a message packet addressed to a specified port
of a destination IP address and determining that the firewall does
not have a message flow rule specifying a combination of a
source IP address, source port, protocol, destination IP address,
and destination port which permits passing of the message
1 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) (filed Feb. 3, 2005);
Appeal Brief (“App. Br,”) (filed Aug. 6, 2014); and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) (filed Apr. 2, 2015). We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
(mailed Feb 5, 2015), and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final
Act.”) (mailed May 7, 2014).
2
Appeal 2015-005019
Application 11/050,187
packet to the port of the destination IP address, the method
comprising the steps of:
responsive to a determination that the firewall blocked the
message packet from being sent to the port of the destination IP
address due to the absence in the firewall of the message flow
rule, sending to a port scanning device a command directing the
port scanning device to test the port of the destination IP address
to determine if the port is open;
identifying, by a processor, a response from the port
scanning device indicating whether the port is open', and
if so, automatically querying an administrator whether
the firewall should have a message flow rule which permits
passing of the message packet to the port of the destination IP
address, if not, not querying an administrator whether the
firewall should have the message flow rule which permits
passing of the message packet to the port of the destination IP
address.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frattura et al. (US 2006/0037075 Al, published Feb. 16,
2006 (filed Feb. 25, 2005, claiming benefit of U.S. Provisional App. No.
60/552,000 filed Mar. 10, 2004)) (“Frattura”) and Ormazabal et al. (US
2005/0076238 Al, published Apr. 7, 2005) (“Ormazabal”).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us is as follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Frattura and
Ormazabal collectively would have taught or suggested
3
Appeal 2015-005019
Application 11/050,187
the firewall receiving a message packet addressed to a specified
port of a destination IP address and determining that the firewall
does not have a message flow rule specifying a combination of a
source IP address, source port, protocol, destination IP address,
and destination port which permits passing of the message packet
to the port of the destination IP address
within the meaning of Appellant’s claim 1 and the commensurate limitations
of claims 7, 13, and 19?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Frattura and Ormazabal do not teach the
disputed limitations of claim 1. See App. Br. 9—17; Reply Br. 2—11.
Specifically Appellant contends that neither Frattura, nor Ormazabal teaches
“a message flow rule specifying a combination of a source IP address,
source port, protocol, destination IP address, and destination port” (Claim 1;
App. Br. 23) (see App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 8—9).
We have reviewed the sections of Frattura and Ormazabal cited by the
Examiner, as well as the detailed discussions of Appellant and the Examiner.
Appellant persuades us of error in the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
While we agree with the Examiner that Frattura and Ormazabal generally
describes firewall security policies and monitoring processes (see Final Act.
3 (citing Frattura 10—12); Ans. 9—13 (citing Frattura 11—12; Ormazabal
144))2, we disagree with the Examiner that either Frattura or Ormazabal,
2 The Examiner also cites to Chapman (Chapman and Zwicky, Building
Internet Firewalls, O’Reilly & Assoc. (1995), see Ans. 10-11). Chapman is
presented for the first time in the Examiner’s Answer to support the
Examiner’s position that specific elements of firewall rules are notoriously
well-known. See Ans. 9—11. The cited portions of Chapman describe
4
Appeal 2015-005019
Application 11/050,187
alone or in combination, describes or suggests message flow rules including
the combination of elements specified in claim 1. Ans. 9—13. The cited
portions of Frattura (Frattura 10—12) merely describe monitoring
processes. Frattura 10—12; see App. Br. 10-11. The cited portions of
Ormazabal (| 44) describe filtering voice-over IP media sessions (network
traffic) using a firewall proxy device that communicates dynamic pinhole
information to a firewall. The dynamic pinhole information contains the
information delineated in Appellant’s claim 1 — source IP address, source
port, protocol, destination IP address, and destination port — but the cited
portions of Ormazabal (144) do not describe firewall rules (message flow
rules) specifying the combination of these elements (this information)
recited in Appellant’s claim 1 (see Reply Br. 8).
It is unclear from the Examiner’s mapping of the prior art elements to
the claim limitations how the combination of Frattura and Ormazabal
teaches or suggests blocking a message based on a message flow rule (i.e.,
determining that a firewall does not have a message flow rule) specifying a
combination of a source IP address, source port, protocol, destination IP
address, and destination port as recited in claim 1. Neither Frattura, nor
Ormazabal, alone or in combination describes such a message flow rule.
packets (network traffic) containing the information delineated in
Appellant’s claim 1, that is the: source IP address, source port, protocol,
destination IP address, and destination port. The cited portions of Chapman,
however, do not describe firewall rules (message flow rules) specifying the
combination of the delineated elements (information) recited in Appellant’s
claim 1 (see Reply Br. 8). Further, Appellants assert that the Examiner has
made numerous new grounds of rejection in the Answer (Reply Br. 2—3)
including the citation of Chapman. We need not (and do not) reach this
issue based on our findings with respect to Chapman (supra).
5
Appeal 2015-005019
Application 11/050,187
Further, assuming without deciding that Frattura suggests a message flow
rule, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Ormazabal’s dynamic
pinhole information might be incorporated into Frattura’s rule or how a
firewall utilizing such a rule would block a particular message (determine
that the firewall does not have such a rule that allows passage of such a
message).
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Frattura and Ormazabal teach the disputed
limitations of Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 7, 13, and 19 include
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2—6, 8—12, 14—18, and 20-21
depend on claims 1,7, 13, and 19, respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—21.
We do not reach the numerous additional issues identified in
Appellant’s briefs, in view of our findings as to Frattura and Ormazabal with
respect to the firewall rule {supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—21.
REVERSED
6