Ex Parte Ferri et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201612359457 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/359,457 01/26/2009 70426 7590 02/29/2016 IBM AUSTIN IPLA W (DL) DeLizioLaw C/O DELIZIO LAW, PLLC 15201 MASON ROAD, SUITE 1000-312 CYPRESS, TX 77433 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Luca Ferri 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. FR920080133US 1 4461 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2495 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/29/2016 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): USPTO@DELIZIOLA W.COM USPT02@DELIZIOLA W.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LUCA FERRI, LUIGI PICHETTI, MARCO SECCHI, and ANTONIO SECOMANDI Appeal2014-000664 Application 12/359,457 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHN F. HORVATH, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to "a method directed to detecting selection of a hyperlink in a host session of a host system" where "[i]t is determined that a web page referenced by the hyperlink should be opened in a sandbox session." Specification 1. Appeal2014-000664 Application 12/359,457 Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method comprising: detecting selection of a hyperlink, for accessing an artifact that is part of content referenced by the hyperlink, in a host session of a host system; displaying a user-interface element providing the option to open the hyperlink in a sandbox session; upon detecting selection of the user interface element, creating the sandbox session, wherein the sandbox session virtualizes at least some resources of the host system; opening a web browser in the sandbox session; requesting content from a server referenced by the hyperlink; prior to scanning the content for malicious content, rendering a web page based on the content in the web browser in the sandbox session; scanning the artifact, independent of scanning an entirety of the content referenced by the hyperlink; and in response to the artifact being independent of malicious content, saving the artifact to the host system. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Gribble (US Patent Application Publication Number 20071017 4915 Al; published July 26, 2007) and Khalidi (US Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0005472 Al; published January 3, 2008). Final Rejection 3-9. 2 Appeal2014-000664 Application 12/359,457 ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 24, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed September 27, 2013), the Answer (mailed August 1, 2013) and the Final Rejection (mailed October 24, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We 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 Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants argue that "Gribble specifically teaches that the content is to be scanned prior to reaching the user's computer" and therefore "Gribble does not disclose or suggest that the rendering of a web page based on content in the browser of a sandbox prior to scanning the content for malicious content." Appeal Brief 9. Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 detects the selection of the hyperlink "in a host session of a host system," but does not recite the components of the host system. Consequently, claiml does not prohibit the scanning of the content prior to reaching the user's computer because claim 1 does not specify the relationship between a user's computer and a sandbox within the host system. In particular, claim 1 does not prohibit the host system from being the spyproxy server 202 shown in Figure 5B of Gribble, which intercepts a selected hyperlink, and downloads, renders, and analyzes 3 Appeal2014-000664 Application 12/359,457 the webpage and constituent objects pointed to by the selected hyperlink in a web browser running in a virtual machine. See Gribble paragraph 70, Final Rejection 3-5. Also, Gribble teaches the spyproxy server and it's VM (virtual machine) can be run on client computer 200 (i.e., the user's computer). See Gribble paragraph 72; Figure 5B. Appellants further argue that Gribble teaches away from "prior to scanning the content for malicious content, [ ] the web page is rendered in a browser in the sandbox session" because "[i]n Gribble, the system blocks the malicious content from being downloaded to a user's computer if the system detects spyware or a drive-by download attach at a Web site: If the system detects spyware or a drive-by download attack at a Web site, it blocks the associated malicious content from reaching the user's computer (i.e., from being installed on or adversely affecting the user's computing system), preventing the spyware or other type of related malware from causing harm." Appeal Brief 9 (citing Gribble, paragraph 16). We do not find Appellants argument persuasive because the selected quotation from Gribble does not show that Gribble teaches away from scanning the content for malicious content in a webpage that has been rendered in a sandbox (e.g., in spyproxy server 202 or client 200). 1 1 "A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that merely disclosing more than one alternative does not teach away from any of these alternatives if the disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the Footnote continued on the next page. 4 Appeal2014-000664 Application 12/359,457 Appellants' argument relies upon an interpretation of claim 1 that is not supported because claim 1 's method does not specify where the sandbox in which the webpage is rendered and the malicious content is scanned in relation to a user's computer. We agree with the Examiner's findings and rejection. Gribble discloses using a tool able to identify malicious software wherein the "tool uses a virtual machine (VM) to sandbox and analyze potentially malicious content." Gribble, Abstract. Gribble further discloses in paragraph 70, "After the Web browser in the VM environment finishes retrieving the page, the spyproxy system analyzes the VM environment for evidence of a drive- by download attack or the installation of spyware in a step 236." Therefore we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, as well as, independent claims 9, 14, and 22 and dependent claims 2-8, 10- 13, 15-21 and 23 not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-23 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)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED alternatives). 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation