Ex Parte CHIU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2019

14873627 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/873,627 10/02/2015
31894 7590 02/19/2019
OKAMOTO & BENEDICTO, LLP
P.O. BOX 641330
SAN JOSE, CA 95164
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Li-Hsiang CHIU
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10033.025100 7196
EXAMINER
TRAN, TONGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte LI-HSIANG CHIU, WEI-CHING CHANG, and
SHIH-HAO WENG
Appeal2018-006873
Application 14/873,627 1
Technology Center 2400
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-17, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Trend Micro, Incorporated as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-006873
Application 14/873,627
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention "relates generally to computer security, and
more particularly but not exclusively to methods and apparatus for detecting
advanced persistent threats." Spec. 1:7-9.
In one embodiment, a system for detecting an advanced
persistent threat (APT) attack on a private computer network
includes hosts computers that receive network traffic and
process the network traffic to identify an access event that
indicates access to a critical asset of an organization that owns
or maintains the private computer network. The critical asset
may be a computer that stores confidential data of the
organization. Access events may be stored in an event log as
event data. Access events indicated in the event log may be
correlated using a set of alert rules to identify an APT attack.
Spec. 2:2-9.
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system for detecting an advanced persistent threat
(APT) attack on a private computer network of an organization,
the system comprising:
a plurality of hosts computers, the plurality of hosts
computers receives network traffic over the private computer
network, parses the network traffic to generate event data that
indicate access to particular computers on the private computer
network that store confidential data of the organization, and
transmits the event data over the private computer network; and
an APT detection server comprising one or more
computers that receive the event data from the plurality of hosts
computers, store the event data in an event log, and correlate
data in the event log using a set of alert rules to detect an APT
attack by identifying an anomalous access to one or more of the
particular computers.
2
Appeal2018-006873
Application 14/873,627
References and Re} ections2
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Korsunsky et al. (US 2011/0238855
Al, published Sept. 29, 2011) ("Korsunsky"). Final Act. 6-9.
Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the collective teachings of Korsunsky and Moritz et al.
(US 9,185,095 Bl, issued Nov. 10, 2015) ("Moritz"). Final Act. 9.
ANALYSIS 3
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of
Korsunsky teach "an APT detection server comprising one or more
computers that receive the event data from the plurality of hosts computers,
store the event data in an event log, and correlate data in the event log using
a set of alert rules to detect an APT attack by identifying an anomalous
access to one or more of the particular computers," as recited in
independent claim 1 (italics added). See App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 3.
In the Final Action, the Examiner cites Korsunsky's paragraphs 118,
128, and 132 for teaching the above claim limitation, but does not provide
any analysis articulating how those cited paragraphs teach or suggest the
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Rejection dated October
26, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) Appeal Brief dated March 14, 2018 ("App.
Br."); (3) Examiner's Answer dated June 15, 2018 ("Ans."); and (4) Reply
Brief dated June 26, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
3 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2018-006873
Application 14/873,627
claimed subject matter. See Final Act. 7. In the Examiner's Answer, the
Examiner responds to Appellants' arguments by citing numerous paragraphs
and three figures of Korsunsky for all of the limitations of claim 1, but does
not specify which portions of Korsunsky teach or suggest the italicized
limitation. See Ans. 8-13. That is, the Examiner does not adequately
explain why the cited Korsunsky excerpts teach or suggest the italicized
limitation in the Final Action or the Examiner's Answer.
Furthermore, we do not find the cited Korsunsky excerpts describe the
italicized limitation of claim 1. In particular, although the cited Korsunsky
excerpts generally discusses logs and alerts, they do not disclose sufficient
details to teach or suggest the italicized limitation. Absent further
explanation from the Examiner, we do not agree with the Examiner that the
cited Korsunsky excerpts teach the italicized limitation.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Independent claim 10 recites a claim limitation that is substantively
similar to the italicized limitation of claim 1. The Examiner applies the
same findings and conclusions to both claims 1 and 10. See Final Act. 7-8;
Ans. 3-5, 7-13. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 10.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-9 and 11-17. Although the Examiner cites an additional reference
for rejecting some dependent claims (claims 6 and 14), the Examiner has not
shown the additional reference overcomes the deficiency discussed above in
the rejection of claim 1.
4
Appeal2018-006873
Application 14/873,627
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17.
REVERSED
5