Ex Parte MODI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2018

14097045 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/097,045 12/04/2013
20995 7590 06/28/2018
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SanjayMODI
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.
DCERT.026A 8588
EXAMINER
MEHRMANESH, AMIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2497
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2018 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):
j ayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANJA Y MODI and RICHARD ANDREWS
Appeal2018-000971
Application 14/097 ,045 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-7 and 14--20. Claims 8-13 are withdrawn (App.
Br. 1, 12-13.) We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Symantec Corporation as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2018-000971
Application 14/097 ,045
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a certificate
authority (CA) that proactively sends OCSP responses to an agent
application (e.g., an antivirus application configured to handle OCSP
responses) residing in a client computer. (Abstract.) Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for distributing certificate status validity
messages, the method comprising:
on a client executing a browser application and an agent
application, prepopulating a cache accessible to the agent
application with one or more certificate status validity messages
received from a certificate authority, wherein the cache is
maintained on the client;
intercepting, via the agent application, a certificate status
validity request from the browser application for a server digital
certificate presented to the client by a remote server to
authenticate the remote server;
determining whether the cache stores a certificate status
validity message corresponding to the certificate status validity
request; and
upon determining that the corresponding certificate status
validity message is stored in the cache, sending the
corresponding certificate status validity message to the browser
application.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 14--20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Edstrom et al. (US 2011/0154017 Al, pub. June
23, 2011) and Ben-Itzhak et al. (US 2010/0023756 Al, pub. Jan. 28, 2010).
(Final Act. 4.)
2
Appeal2018-000971
Application 14/097 ,045
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue: 2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Edstrom
and Ben-Itzhak teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation,
on a client executing a browser application and an agent
application, prepopulating a cache accessible to the agent
application with one or more certificate status validity messages
received from a certificate authority, wherein the cache is
maintained on the client,
and the commensurate limitation of independent claim 14. (App. Br. 6-7.)
ANALYSIS
In finding the combination of Edstrom and Ben-Itzhak teaches or
suggests the limitation of the claim at issue, the Examiner relies, inter alia,
on the disclosure in Edstrom of an intermediary device between a client and
server, in which the intermediary device has a cache storing a status of a
client certificate used as part of an Online Certificate Status Protocol
("OCSP") request made between the client and an OCSP server. (Final Act.
4--7; Edstrom i-fi-14--7, 68, 75-80.)
The Examiner further relies on the disclosure of Edstrom of ( 1) a
client communicating with a server, (2) a method for supporting OCSP in
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 16, 2017) (herein, "App.
Br."); the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 6, 2017) (herein, "Reply Br."); the Final
Office Action (mailed Dec. 16, 2016) (herein, "Final Act."); the Advisory
Action (mailed Mar. 1, 2017) (herein, "Adv. Act."); and the Examiner's
Answer (mailed Sept. 7, 2017) (herein, "Ans.") for the respective details.
3
Appeal2018-000971
Application 14/097 ,045
connection with an SSL handshaking procedure which is done directly
between the client on one side and the server on the other side, and (3) the
intermediary device providing functionality that serves as an OCSP server to
the OCSP client. (Ans. 3--4; Edstrom i-fi-160-61, 348, 241, Fig. 7C.)
In finding that Edstrom's intermediary device can provide
functionality that serves as an OCSP server to the OCSP client, the
Examiner further finds that "communication between the client and the
intermediary device would be the same as the communication of the OCSP
client with the OCSP server," making it "obvious to one [of] ordinary skill[]
in the art" that the OCSP client would possess Edstrom's cache manager.
(Ans. 4, Edstrom i1241.)
Appellants principally argue that "[ t ]here is nothing in Edstrom to
suggest that removing the intermediary from the communication path
between client and server would cause an OCSP client to adopt any function
ascribed to the intermediate device other than OCSP client functions."
(Reply Br. 3.) Appellants contend "[t]he fact that a client device can directly
communicate with a server does not imply that the client device 'executes
the functionalities of the intermediate device." (Reply Br. 2, citing
Edstrom i1 241.) (Emphasis added).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The cited portion of
Edstrom contains the explicit suggestion that "the intermediary device 200,
or a component of the intermediary 200 (e.g., SSL engine 667), may be
identified as or configured to behave or act as an OCSP client that seeks to
determine the validity of the certificate 678." (Edstrom i1241.) This
disclosure at least teaches or suggests the inclusion of the intermediary 200
and its functions, including the intermediary's cache of certificate status
4
Appeal2018-000971
Application 14/097 ,045
validity messages in the client. Accordingly, the resulting consolidation
incorporates into the client the intermediary 200 and its functions "to behave
or act as" an OCSP client, as Edstrom also teaches the client may
"communicate[] directly with one of the servers." (Edstrom i-f 60.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent
claims 1 and 14, and all dependent claims not separately argued with
particularity. (See App. Br. 9.)
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 and 14--20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Edstrom and Ben-Itzhak.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 14--20.
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
5