Ex Parte Hopen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

11009692 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2012)

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.
11/009,692 12/10/2004 Chris Hopen SONIC-015 8314
22830 7590 03/27/2012
CARR & FERRELL LLP
120 CONSTITUTION DRIVE
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
EXAMINER
LAFORGIA, CHRISTIAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHRIS HOPEN, GARY TOMLINSON,
PARVEZ ANANDAM, BRIAN YOUNG, and ALAN FLAGG
____________________

Appeal 2010-000847
Application 11/009,692
Technology Center 2400

____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000847
Application 11/009,692

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-18. Claims 9 and 10 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system and method
for controlling requests for resources from remote computers. Computer or
computers responsible for controlling access to a resource will interrogate a
remote computer trying to access the resource, to ascertain its operating
environment. The computer may accomplish this by downloading one or
more interrogator agents onto the remote computer. Based upon the
interrogation results, the computer or computers responsible for controlling
access to a resource will control the remote computer's access to the
requested resource. (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claims
1. A method of determining an operating environment of a remote
computer, comprising:

installing an interrogator agent onto the remote computer; and

receiving interrogation results produced by the interrogator
agent.

11. A method of provisioning a remote computer, comprising:

receiving a communication from a remote computer;
Appeal 2010-000847
Application 11/009,692

3
installing at least one interrogator agent onto the remote
computer;

receiving interrogation results produced by the at least one
interrogator agent;

based upon the interrogation results, identifying one or more
process objects that may be supported by an operating environment of
the remote computer; and

installing the one or more process objects onto the remote
computer.

Prior Art
Jerger US 6,321,334 B1 Nov. 20, 2001
Brittingham US 2002/0112052 A1 Aug. 15, 2002

Rejections
(1) Claims 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Brittingham.
(2) Claims 1-8 and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Brittingham and Jerger.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 11
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 11-14. (See App. Br.
14).
Appeal 2010-000847
Application 11/009,692

4
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1-8 and 15-18. (See
App. Br. 15-17).
We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. We have only
considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 11-14
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Brittingham
(App. Br. 14). Specifically, Appellants argue Brittingham’s teaching of
downloading a program after authentication does not disclose the recited
“interrogator agent being based on the identity of the user” (id.). Instead,
according to Appellants, the query program discussed in Brittingham
appears to be generic and downloadable to any computer regardless of user
identity (id.). Further, according to Appellants, Brittingham discusses the
log-in and password combination concerns certification of a computing
device not the download of an agent (Reply Br. 3).

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Brittingham discloses
“providing at least one interrogator agent for installation onto the remote
computer, the at least one interrogator agent being based on the identity of
the user of the remote computer” as recited in claim 11?

Appeal 2010-000847
Application 11/009,692

5
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants that Brittingham does not disclose the
query program provided to the client computer is based on the identity of the
user of the client computer (Reply Br. 3). Accordingly, the Examiner erred
in finding Brittingham discloses the invention as recited in independent
claim 11 and claims 12-14, which depend therefrom. Therefore, the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for
anticipation by Brittingham.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-8 and 15-18
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Brittingham and
Jerger because neither reference, nor the combination thereof, teaches or
suggests the zone of trust is based on the authenticated identity of the user
and the received interrogation results (App. Br. 15-16). Appellants contend
the security zones of Jerger are configured custom security zones or a
default set of predefined security zones and the security zones do not involve
any determinations based on the authenticated identity of the user and the
received interrogation results (id.).

Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Brittingham and Jerger would have taught or suggested “determining a zone
of trust from a plurality of zones of trust based on the authenticated identity
of the user and the received interrogation results” as recited in claim 1?

Appeal 2010-000847
Application 11/009,692

6
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies upon Brittingham as teaching “based on the
authenticated identity of the user” (Ans. 14). However, the Examiner
indicated Brittingham does not disclose “determining a zone of trust from a
plurality of zones of trust based on the authenticated identity of the user and
the received interrogation results, each zone of trust being associated with a
set of resources and authorizing access to a requested resources based on an
association with the determined zone of trust” (Ans. 5 (emphasis in
original)) but then states Brittingham teaches “based on the authenticated
identity of the user and the received interrogation results” (Ans. 14). As
discussed above, we find Brittingham does not disclose interrogation results.
Moreover, we are not persuaded that the combination of Brittingham and
Jerger teach or suggest the disputed limitation, since the Examiner has not
set forth with particularity the basis for rejection.
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Brittingham
and Jerger would have taught or suggested the invention as recited in
independent claim 1, commensurately recited claims 5, 15, and 17, and
dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 16, and 18. Therefore, the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-8 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness
over Brittingham and Jerger.

Appeal 2010-000847
Application 11/009,692

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Brittingham is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Brittingham and Jerger is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD