Ex Parte Lemberg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2018

12675599 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2018)

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.
OSL-068 5392
EXAMINER
DEBNATH, SUMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/675,599 04/22/2010
3897 7590 02/22/2018
Law Offices of Thomas Schneck
P.O. BOX 2-E
SAN JOSE, CA 95109
Trond Lemberg
02/22/2018 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
Ex parte TROND LEMBERG
Appeal 2017-009428
Application 12/675,5991
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 2—15, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Claim 1 was cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Message Management
AS. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-009428
Application 12/675,599
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s described and claimed invention relates generally to
security mechanisms for message based electronic transactions. See
Spec. 11.2
Claim 2 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitations emphasized)'.
2. A method for assessment of security in transport
paths/routes used by senders with a declaration of security level
of the transport paths/routes in one or more data networks,
where the one or more data networks comprise at least one or
more senders, at least one or more receivers, at least one or
more intermediate nodes characterized in that the method at
least comprises the steps of:
a) the at least one or more senders sending a declaration
request to an entity being a node intermediate the one or more
senders and one or more receivers and independent of the one
or more receivers,
b) the entity, in response to the at least one or more
senders’ declaration request to the entity, verifying at least one
messaging service address of the at least one or more receivers
identified in the declaration by:
interrogating a domain name server having access
to a crawler database of previously established and
regularly maintained addressing details of the at least one
messaging service address with respect to server names
of machines that run at least one messaging service for
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed May 2, 2016 (“Final
Act.”), Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed December 22, 2016 (“App. Br.”) and
Reply Brief filed June 21, 2017 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed April 21, 2017, and the original Specification filed February 26, 2010
(“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2017-009428
Application 12/675,599
the at least one or more receivers and at least one address
associated with the machines, or
interrogating the crawler database or storage
means accessible to the entity where the database or
storage means have access to the addressing details of the
at least one messaging service address with respect to the
server names of the machines that run the at least one
messaging service for the at least one receiver and the at
least one address associated with the machines, the entity
being neither the sender nor the receiver, and
c) the entity verifying a security level or level of
confidentiality of one or more connections requested by the at
least one or more senders based upon said addressing details,
and
d) the entity sending a response to the declaration request
of the at least one or more senders, the response being a quality
statement of the security settings of the receiver,
whereby senders are provided a security level assessment
of network transport paths/routes associated with the at least
one or more receivers prior to initiating a communication
session with the at least one or more receivers.
App. Br. 16—17 (Claims App.).
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 2—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Polk (US 2008/0133761 Al; published June 5, 2008)
(“Polk”), in view of Annie (US 2006/0013157 Al; published Jan. 19, 2006)
(“Annie”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 7—14) and Reply Brief (see
3
Appeal 2017-009428
Application 12/675,599
Reply Br. 2—6), and are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. Unless
otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2—15), and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—7), and we concur with
the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs.
Appellant argues the combination of cited references fails to teach or
suggest a verification of a security level or level of confidentiality associated
with one or more network connections to a receiver. See App. Br. 9—14; see
also Reply Br. 2—6. More specifically, Appellant argues Polk merely
discloses verifying a security level or a level of confidentiality of a called
party rather than a security level or level of confidentiality of a transport
route/path (i.e., connection) in a network between an intermediate node and
a called party. See App. Br. 9-11; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant further
argues Annie fails to cure this deficiency of Polk as Annie fails to describe
any assessment of security in transport paths/routes or verifying of a security
level or level of confidentiality associated with one or more network
connects to a receiver. See App. Br. 11—12; see also Reply Br. 2-4.
Appellant also argues Polk and Annie teach (a) a receiver-centric
verification mechanism where security information is established
synchronously in relation to an establishment of a communication session by
a sender, whereas the claimed invention involves (b) a sender-centric
verification mechanism where security information is established
asynchronously in relation to an establishment of a communication session
by a sender. See App. Br. 13—14; see also Reply Br. 5—6.
4
Appeal 2017-009428
Application 12/675,599
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Regarding Appellant’s
argument that Polk merely discloses verifying a security level of a called
party rather than a security level of a connection to the called party, we agree
with the Examiner that the claimed “verifying a security level or level of
confidentiality of one or more connections,” as recited in independent claim
2 and similarly recited in independent claim 10, when interpreted under the
broadest reasonable interpretation, reads on Polk’s verifying a security level
of a called party. See Ans. 2—3. Polk’s verification that a called party is
authorized to participate in a session at a requested security level is a type of
verification of a connection to the called party, and Appellant’s claims fail to
distinguish the claimed verification from the verification taught in Polk. See
Polk || 58—59. Regarding Appellant’s argument that the combination of
Polk and Annie fails to teach a sender-centric verification mechanism where
security information is established asynchronously in relation to an
establishment of a communication session, this argument is not persuasive
because claims 2 and 10 fail to recite the aforementioned feature. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches all
the limitations of claims 2 and 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 10
for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3—9 and 11—15, which depend from one of claims 2 and
10, and which are not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal 2017-009428
Application 12/675,599
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).
AFFIRMED
6