11304167 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 2010)

Ex Parte O

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 29, 2010

11304167 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 2010)

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. 11/304,167 12/15/2005 Patrick Charles O'Sullivan WILY-01037US1 5900 28554 7590 11/30/2010 Vierra Magen Marcus & DeNiro LLP 575 Market Street, Suite 2500 San Francisco, CA 94105 EXAMINER CLOUD, JOIYA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2444 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2010 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 PATRICK CHARLES O’SULLIVAN ____________ Appeal 2009-011190 Application 11/304,167 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-011190 Application 11/304,167 2 Appellant requests rehearing of the June 29, 2010, Decision on Appeal (“Decision”), wherein we affirmed the rejection of claims 1-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Campbell. We have reconsidered the Decision in light of Appellant’s arguments but, for the reasons given below, are not persuaded of any error therein. After correctly noting that the Appeal Brief cited to the Specification at pages 13 (¶ 0054), 22 (¶ 0076), and 26 (¶ 0085) (Req. Reh’g 2), Appellant argues that our decision ignored Appellant’s Specification in determining the meaning of the term “transaction” (id.). Appellant further argues that our decision also ignored the meaning of the term “session” as Appellant’s Specification provided on pages 25 and 26 (¶ 0084) (id.). These arguments are unpersuasive because the relied on portions of the Specification provide descriptions and examples that are consistent with how Campbell describes the user activity as “a series of user actions within the monitored computer network environment, as represented by a stream of audit events” (col. 5, ll. 5-10). Campbell further explains that events may be self-contained records or may include links to other events, where the system captures information about each happening (col. 5, ll. 10-15). Therefore, our conclusion that Campbell’s grouping the events into different threads used for monitoring and analysis at different levels of abstraction meets the subject matter recited in claim 2 was not based on misapprehended claim limitations. Rather, we determined that the terms “transaction” and “session” as “a series of related network communications that perform a function” and “a related set of one or more connections” have functions similar to the events and event audits that represent users’ activities and the system activities on behalf of users (Decision 9). Appeal 2009-011190 Application 11/304,167 3 With respect to Appellant’s arguments regarding the recitation of “user identification” in claim 1 (Req. Reh’g 3), our Decision did address the limitation of the particular user identification be bound to the “another data unit” with no user identification. In that regard, we found (Decision 8) that Campbell maps the user actions represented by the normalized records into one or more Security Indications and Warning Engine (SI&W Engine) events (col. 13, ll. 58-65). We also found (Decision 8) that the audit records are collected and associated for analysis at different levels of abstraction by grouping the audit events into related set of events or threads of activity, periods of activity or sessions, and trends of activity or sessions (col. 14, ll. 59-65). Based on Campbell describing various types of threads for grouping the audit records in infinite numbers (col. 14, l. 65 – col. 15, l. 4), we concluded (Decision 8) that the particular user identification from the thread associated with a certain user may be bound to “another data unit” that is without the user identification by associating the user thread with another thread, such as records for a certain computer system or network, that does not include the particular user identification. Additionally, Appellant repeats the same arguments for claim 2 and further contends (Req. Reh’g 4-5) that Campbell’s user login into the system does not include a user identification for “the another data unit” which does not have the user identification. We found (Decision 9-10) Campbell’s associating weights with a particular user/source allows a user’s activities including the login be grouped in a thread and be used in generating an internal non-alert warning based on the user’s activities. In fact, by comparing the weighted value of the user to other users or events, Campbell binds or associates the particular data unit that includes login with another Appeal 2009-011190 Application 11/304,167 4 data unit without the user identification which takes place subsequent to login transaction, as recited in claim 2. CONCLUSION Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have granted Appellant’s request to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision, but we deny Appellant’s request to make any change therein. ORDER The request for rehearing is denied. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2010). REHEARING DENIED babc Vierra Magen Marcus & DeNiro LLP 575 Market Street, Suite 2500 San Francisco, CA 94105