Ex Parte Devine et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 27, 2012

11023953 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte CAROL Y. DEVINE, GERALD A. SHIFRIN, and
RICHARD W. SHOULBERG
________________

Appeal 2010-004970
Application 11/023,953
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004970
Application 11/023,953

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11-22. Claims 1-4 have been canceled, and claims 5-10
have been allowed. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to secure communications with an
enterprise network over a public data network and includes a server within a
secure network area that employs a plurality of firewalls. See generally
Abstract; Spec. 1, 24; Figs. 1, 4. Claim 11 is illustrative with key disputed
limitations emphasized:
11. A method for supporting secure communication, the method
comprising:
receiving a service request over a private data network from a server
within a secure network area that employs a plurality of firewalls, the server
receiving the service request from a client via a communication session over
a public data network, wherein the communication session is associated with
a session identifier stored at the client; and
dispatching the service request to a proxy service linking to one of a
plurality of applications.
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Shi US 5,875,296 Feb. 23, 1999
(filed Jan. 28, 1997)
Crichton US 6,104,716 Aug. 15, 2000
(filed Mar. 28, 1997)

Appeal 2010-004970
Application 11/023,953

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 11-14, 16-20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Crichton. Ans. 3-4.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Crichton and Shi. Ans. 4.

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Crichton discloses every recited feature of
illustrative claim 11 including receiving a service request over a private data
network from a server within a secure network area that employs a plurality
of firewalls. Ans. 3. The Examiner interprets the secure network area in
Crichton as the middle proxies and firewalls which are connected to the
secure single tunnel. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that Crichton’s middle
proxy equates to the recited server. Ans. 5-6.
Appellants assert that Crichton does not disclose receiving a service
request over a private data network from a server within a secure network
area that employs a plurality of firewalls. App. Br. 4-7; Reply Br. 2-3.
According to Appellants, Crichton does not disclose a secure network area
as claimed or the recited server. Id. The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 by finding
that Crichton discloses receiving a service request over a private data

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 11, 2009,
the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 2, 2009, and the Reply Brief filed
October 28, 2009.
Appeal 2010-004970
Application 11/023,953

4
network from a server within a secure network area that employs a plurality
of firewalls?

ANALYSIS
ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 11-14, 16-20, AND 22
This appeal turns on one fundamental question: Does Crichton
disclose a “secure network area”? As noted above, the Examiner interprets
the secure network area as the middle proxies and firewalls which are
connected to the secure single tunnel. Ans. 6 (citing col. 2, ll. 50-55; col. 8,
ll. 53-57). In particular, the Examiner, in citing column 2, points to
Crichton’s “complete end-to-end connection between the server and client
[that] is established [through] the use of one or more middle proxies together
with an appropriate protocol . . . that establishes the secure communications
link or tunnel across multiple firewalls.” In so doing, the Examiner relies on
column 2 in Crichton as disclosing a secure network area that includes a
secure communications link or tunnel across multiple firewalls and through
a middle proxy or proxies. As such, the Examiner’s position is that
Crichton’s “complete end-to-end connection between the server and client”
is a network and includes the secure communications link or tunnel
connected to the middle proxies and multiple firewalls that the Examiner
interprets as the secure network area.
We see no error in the Examiner’s interpretation. Nor do Appellants
point to any portion of the Specification as evidence that the Examiner’s
interpretation is overbroad in light of the disclosure in the Specification. In
the Specification Appellants describe a “special secure network area” that is
physically isolated and firewalled from the company intranet and from the
Appeal 2010-004970
Application 11/023,953

5
public internet. Spec. 24 (referring to Fig. 4). Appellants also describe a
“secure network area” that is known as a “DeMilitarized Zone” or “DMZ”
that is double firewalled between the public internet and the company
intranet and is set aside on the company premises. Spec. 51 (referring to
Fig. 5). Appellants’ descriptions, however, do not define a secure network
area and are, at best, preferred embodiments of a secure network area. We
decline to read limitations into a claim from preferred embodiments
described in the Specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Having found no error in the Examiner’s interpretation of a secure
network area based on Crichton, we can readily dispose of the remaining
issues of whether Crichton discloses a secure network area and whether
Crichton discloses the claimed server.
Turning to whether Crichton discloses a secure network area,
Appellants do not contest that Crichton discloses the secure communications
link or tunnel, middle proxies, and multiple firewalls that the Examiner
interprets as the secure network area. See generally App. Br. 4-7; Reply Br.
2-3. Rather, in response to the Examiner’s interpretation and findings,
Appellants contest whether the secure tunnel itself makes up a secure
network area. See generally Reply Br. 2-3. These arguments, however, are
not germane to whether Crichton discloses a secure network area that
includes the middle proxies and firewalls that are connected to the secure
communications link or tunnel.
In finding that Crichton discloses a secure network area, the Examiner
found that the claim language requires a secure network area that employs a
plurality of firewalls. Ans. 5-6. We note that Appellants and the Examiner
Appeal 2010-004970
Application 11/023,953

6
agree that the claim language requires a secure network area that employs a
plurality of firewalls. Compare App. Br. 5 with Ans. 5. Based on the
Examiner’s interpretation of the secure network area including the middle
proxies and firewalls that are connected to the secure single tunnel and the
disclosure of the same in Crichton as discussed above, we see no error in the
Examiner’s position that Crichton discloses the claimed secure network area
that employs a plurality of firewalls.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s position that that
Crichton’s middle proxy equates to the claimed server. Ans. 6. Notability,
the Examiner points to Crichton’s explicit disclosure that the middle proxy is
a server. Id. (citing Abstract). Following from the Examiner’s interpretation
of the secure network area including the middle proxies and firewalls that
are connected to the secure single tunnel, the Examiner further finds that the
middle proxy is within the secure network area, as required by the claim
language. Id. We see no error in the Examiner’s position that the middle
proxy is in the secure network area as interpreted by the Examiner.
Appellants’ arguments that the tunnel alone cannot constitute the
claimed secure network area and that the middle proxy cannot equate to the
recited server are unpersuasive for they are not commensurate with the
Examiner’s position which maps the secure network area to Crichton’s
middle proxies and firewalls which are connected to the secure tunnel
between the server end proxy and the client end proxy, as noted above.
On this record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Crichton discloses receiving a service request over a private data
network from a server within a secure network area that employs a plurality
of firewalls. Therefore we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
Appeal 2010-004970
Application 11/023,953

7
rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) claim 11 and claims 12-14 and 16, which
depend from claim 11 and were not separately argued with particularity.
We reach a similar conclusion regarding the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of independent claim 17 which also recites, in
pertinent part, an interface configured to receive a service request over a
private data network from a server within a secure network area that
employs a plurality of firewalls, or of dependent claims 18-20 and 22, which
depend from claim 17 and were not separately argued with particularity.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 15 AND 21
Likewise, we sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 15
and 21. The Examiner finds that Crichton discloses every recited feature of
claims 15 and 21 except that the session identifier is encapsulated in a
cookie. Ans. 4. For this limitation, the Examiner relies on Shi’s disclosure
of the generation of cookies that are to be used by a client. Id. (citing col. 3,
ll. 22-46).
Appellants have not particularly pointed out errors in the Examiner’s
reasoning to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness. Appellants merely rely on the same arguments with respect to
the alleged deficiencies of Crichton in connection with independent claims
11 and 17 and that Shi does not cure those deficiencies. App. Br. 7. We are
not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the same reasons discussed
above. The rejection of claims 15 and 21 is therefore sustained.

Appeal 2010-004970
Application 11/023,953

8
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11-14, 16-20, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and in rejecting claims 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11-22 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc