Ex Parte Challener et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2012

11054391 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID CARROLL CHALLENER,
RICHARD W. CHESTON,
DARYL CARVIS CROMER,
and HOWARD JEFFREY LOCKER
____________________

Appeal 2010-005092
Application 11/054,391
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005092
Application 11/054,391

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1, 2, and 3 under appeal read as follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining if a client computer on a network is
compliant with a data security regulatory rule, wherein the data
security regulatory rule describes guidelines for administrative
steps that are to be taken to ensure that unauthorized access to a
database, particularly on the network, does not occur; and
in response to determining that the client computer is not
in compliance with the data security regulatory rule, limiting
the client computer’s access to data on the network, wherein the
data security regulatory rule is one of a governmental or a non-
governmental non-technical rule for prohibiting unauthorized
access to the database.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to determining that the client computer is not
in compliance with the data security regulatory rule,
determining what level of compliance the client computer is
authorized to be in with regards to the data security regulatory
rule; and
in response to determining the level of compliance that
the client computer is authorized to be in, sending to the client
computer a compliance fix that permits the client computer to
have access to the network at a level commiserate with the level
of compliance at which the client computer is authorized.

Appeal 2010-005092
Application 11/054,391

3
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising automatically
providing the compliance fix to the client computer, wherein
the compliance fix is sent from a compliance fix server that is
dedicated to serving compliance fixes.

Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being unpatentable over Herrmann ‘984 (US 2004/0167984 A1,
Aug. 26, 2004). Ans. 3.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 15-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herrmann ‘984 and
Herrmann ‘994 (US 2003/0055994 A1, Mar. 20, 2003). Ans. 6.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, and 18-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herrmann ‘984 and
Patanella (US 2004/0193907 A1, Sep. 30, 2004). 1 Ans. 10.

Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 8, and 15 because Herrmann ‘984 does not disclose a “data security
regulatory rule,” as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. (Br. 5-6).
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2, 9, and 16 because Herrmann ‘984 and Herrmann ‘994 do not teach
or suggest sending to the client computer a compliance fix that permits the
client computer to have access to the network at a level commensurate with

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, and 18-
20. Therefore, we treat claims 1-3 as representative for purposes of the
rejection of these claims. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 4, 5, 7,
11, 12, 14, and 18-20 are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2010-005092
Application 11/054,391

4
the level of compliance at which the client computer is authorized. (Br. 6-
8).
3. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 3, 10, and 17 because Herrmann ‘994 does not teach or suggest
“automatically downloading a compliance fix.” (Br. 8) (emphasis ours).

Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by
Herrmann ‘984 because the reference does not teach the argued limitations?
In particular, the issue turns on whether Herrmann ‘984 teaches a “data
security regulatory rule,” as recited in claim 1.2
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 2 and 3 as being obvious
because the references fail to teach or suggest the claim limitations at issue?3

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s

2 Appellants focus their contentions on claim 1 and argue the patentability of
claims 8 and 15 based on the same reasons presented for claim 1, allowing
those claims stand or fall with representative claim 1 (see Br. 5-6).

3 Appellants focus their contentions on claims 2 and 3 and argue the
patentability of claims 9, 10, 16, and 17, respectively, based on the same
reasons presented for claims 2 and 3, allowing claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 to
stand or fall with representative claim 2 and 3 (see Br. 6-8).
Appeal 2010-005092
Application 11/054,391

5
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-16). However,
we highlight and address specific findings for emphasis as follows.
As to above contention 1, we disagree with Appellants’ arguments.
Claim 1 recites that a data security regulatory rule “is one of a governmental
or a non-governmental non-technical rule for prohibiting unauthorized
access to the database.” The Examiner correctly points out that Herrmann
‘984 explicitly discloses the recited “data security regulatory rule” as “a set
of security policies and rules employed by an individual or by a corporation,
government entity, or any other organization operating a network or other
computing resources.” (Ans. 13 (citing Herrmann ‘984 ¶ 0039)).
As to above contention 2, we agree with the Examiner’s analysis
(Ans. 14-15) in response to Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner correctly
points out (Ans. 14-15) that Herrmann ‘994 explicitly discloses “sending
updates to become compliant (¶¶ 0051, 0067, and 0089), and “pushing
program updates” (¶¶ 0013-0014, 0081, and 0108).
As to above contention 3, relating to automatically downloading a
compliance fix, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope
of the claim. Claim 3 does not recite “downloading”.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 15 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 2-7 and 9-20 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-20 are not patentable.
Appeal 2010-005092
Application 11/054,391

6

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 are 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc