Ex Parte Curry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2017

14017909 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 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.
14/017,909 09/04/2013 John Curry OC000025 7512
95050 7590 03/09/2017
Tnhn S Frnnnmnn
EXAMINER
78 Ward Dr. ULLAH, SHARIF E
New Rochelle, NY 10804
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2017 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):
docketing@economoupatentlaw.com
uspto@dockettrak.com
jeconomou @economousilfin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN CURRY and RONALD MRAZ
Appeal 2016-006158
Application 14/017,9091
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this appeal. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Owl Computing
Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 2. This appeal relates to Appeal 2016-003718
(S/N 13/940,339) being decided herewith.
Appeal 2016-006158
Application 14/017,909
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants invented a system having one-way interface (308) for
transferring data from ArchestrA Galaxy (302) security network domain
(320) to ArchestrA Galaxy (312) in security network domain (330). Spec.
11, Fig. 3. In security network domain (320), ArchestrA Galaxy (302) is
coupled to Wonderware Historian (303), Standalone Server (304), and Send
Server Computer (307) via network (301). In security network domain
(330), ArchestrA Galaxy (312) is coupled to Wonderware Historian (313),
Standalone Server Computer (314), and Receive Server Computer (309) via
network (311). Fig. 3. Upon retrieving information from ArchestrA Galaxy
(302), Standalone Server (304) forwards the retrieved information to Send
Server Computer (307), which transfers the forwarded information to
Receive Server Computer (309), which in turn, forwards the transferred
information to Standalone Server (314) to determine whether or not
ArchestrA Galaxy (312) needs the information. Spec. 112.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A system for transmitting ArchestrA information from a
first network in a first security domain to a second network in a second
security domain, comprising:
a send server computer within the first security domain having an
input coupled to the first network and an output, the send server computer
configured to forward information received via the input on the output;
a one-way data link having an input within the first security domain
coupled to the output of the send server computer and an output within the
second security domain;
a receive server computer within the second security domain having
an input coupled to the output of the one-way data link and an output
coupled to the second network;
2
Appeal 2016-006158
Application 14/017,909
a first stand-alone server computer within the first security domain
coupled to the first network and configured to retrieve information via the
first network from a first ArchestrA Galaxy in the first security domain
and/or from a first historian in the first security domain and to forward the
retrieved information to the send server computer via the first network;
a second stand-alone server computer within the second security
domain coupled to the second network;
wherein the receive server computer is configured to receive the
information from the send server computer via the one-way data link and to
forward the received information to the second stand-alone server computer
via the second network;
wherein the second stand-alone server computer is configured to
receive the information from the receive server computer and forward the
information to a second ArchestrA Galaxy in the second security domain
and/or to a second historian in the second security domain; and
wherein the one-way data link is configured to transfer data only from
the send server computer to the receive server computer and to prevent any
signal from passing from the receive server computer to the send server
computer, and wherein the receive server computer is coupled to the send
server computer only via the one-way data link.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Bartfai US 2006/0106747 A1
Schaeffer US 7,260,833 B1
Mraz US 8,139,581 B1
Gopalakrishnan US 2012/0209967 A1
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—5 and 11—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
AIA) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gopalakrishnan, Mraz,
and Schaeffer. Final. Act. 3—6.
Claims 6—10 and 16—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
AIA) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gopalakrishnan, Mraz,
Schaeffer, and Bartfai. Final. Act. 6—9.
May 18,2006
Aug. 21,2007
Mar. 20, 2012
Aug. 16, 2012
3
Appeal 2016-006158
Application 14/017,909
ANALYSIS
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue that
Gopalakrishnan, Mraz, and Schaeffer are not properly combined to teach or
suggest a one-way data link coupling a send server in a first security domain
to a receive server in a second security domain such that information is
transferred only from the send server to the receive server via the one-way
data link. App. Br. 11. According to Appellants, the one-way data link for
transmitting data from a first server to a second server, as disclosed by
Schaeffer and Mraz, would render Gopalakrishnan’s system inoperable or
change the fundamental operation thereof. Id., Reply Br. 6—7. In particular,
Appellants argue that replacing Gopalakrishnan’s two way data link with a
one-way data link would impair the integrity and accuracy of
Gopalakrishnan’s system by preventing the servers from sharing or
exchanging data as required by the reference. Id. (citing Gopalakrishnan
1110, Fig. 14). Further, Appellants argue that although the primary server
is connected to the backup server via separate network connections, such
alternative connections would vitiate the claim requirement that the two
computer platforms being connected only via the one-way data link. Id. at 7.
In response, the Examiner finds replacing Gopalakrishnan’s two-way
data link with Schaeffer’s or Mraz’s one way data link would not frustrate
the purpose of Gopalakrishnan’s system because Gopalakrishnan’s
disclosure that the primary and backup servers “can communicate” via the
two-way data link does not require the use of such a communication link, as
evidenced by the fact that the servers can share information through
alternative means. Ans. 2—3, Final Act. 3^4 (citing Gopalakrishnan| 111).
4
Appeal 2016-006158
Application 14/017,909
According to the Examiner, the two-way data link can be split as two one­
way data links, each being a one-way channel in the opposite direction.
Ans. 3. We do not agree with the Examiner.
Gopalakrishnan discloses a disaster recovery system having a two-
way data link for sharing information between a primary server and a
secondary server. Gopalakrishnan 1110. In particular, the two-way data
link is used between a primary server and a backup server to maintain
accuracy and integrity between the two servers. Id. That is, information of
the two servers remains consistent at all times through periodic data
replications and updates from the primary server to the backup server, and
vice-versa. Id. at H 110-111. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that
replacing the two-way data link with a one-way data link would frustrate the
purpose of Gopalakrishnan’s system by preventing the backup server from
sharing its data with the primary server. Reply Br. 7. We further agree with
Appellants that any alternative means for sharing information between the
servers would vitiate the claim language requiring that the servers be
coupled via a one-way data link only. Id. at 7—8.2
Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we need not reach Appellants’ remaining
arguments. Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
as well as the rejections of claims 2—20, which recite the disputed limitations
discussed above.
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider rejecting
the claims over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (Fig. 1 of the drawings of
S/N 13/940,339 and Mraz).
5
Appeal 2016-006158
Application 14/017,909
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1—20 as set forth above.
REVERSED
6