Ex Parte Rodniansky

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2018

14448286 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/448,286 07/31/2014 Leonid Rodniansky
58919 7590 10/25/2018
TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP - IBM SV
PO BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
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.
AUS920140218US1 9646
EXAMINER
LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2018 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
tmunoz@tcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEONID RODNIANSKY
Appeal 2018-003 651
Application 14/448,286
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, BETH Z. SHAW, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE 1
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 7-9, 11-15, and 17-20, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 1---6, 10, and 16 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, International Business Machines Corporation is
the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-003651
Application 14/448,286
Disclosed Invention
The disclosed and claimed invention is a system having a computer-
usable medium (claim 7) and a corresponding computer-readable medium
(claim 13) "for performing forensic database security operations to verify
database query integrity" (Spec. ,r 1 ). The system uses an external database
security mechanism (EDSM) to intercept and inspect database protocol
packets containing database queries (Spec. ,r 2, 5-7). The EDSM "processes
the extracted database query with a secret key to generate a first keyed-hash
message authentication code (HMAC) value, which in tum is inserted into
the intercepted database protocol packet" (Spec. ,r 5). Independent claims 7
and 12 are exemplary, and read as follows (with the disputed portions of the
claim emphasized and bracket lettering added):
7. A system comprising:
a hardware processor;
a data bus coupled to the hardware processor; and
a computer-usable medium embodying computer program
code, the computer-usable medium being coupled to the data bus,
the computer program code used for performing
forensic database security operations to verify database query
integrity and comprising instructions executable by the hardware
processor and configured for:
intercepting a database protocol packet directed to a
database server;
providing the intercepted database protocol packet
to an external database security mechanism (EDSM)
system;
inspecting the database protocol packet by the
EDSM system, the database protocol packet comprising a
database query;
using a secret key to calculate a first hash message
authentication code (HMAC) for the database query, the first
2
Appeal 2018-003651
Application 14/448,286
HMAC enabling verification of data integrity and authentication
of the database query;
[ A J inserting the first HMA C for the database query
into the intercepted database protocol packet to generate a
modified database protocol packet, the modified database
protocol packet comprising the database query and the
first HMA C, the database query not being affected by the
calculation of the first HMAC;
providing the modified database protocol packet to
the database server; and
querying the database server for the first HMAC to
verify that the EDSM system inspected the database protocol
packet; and,
[BJ storing the database query and the first HMAC
in a database session tracking table associated with the database,
wherein the database query and the first HMAC are accessed
using a database protocol.
12. The system of claim 11, further comprising:
[CJ marking the database query as having been modified
after being inspected by the EDSM system if the first HMAC and
the second HMAC do not match.
Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Sanjeev et al. (US
2014/0181933 Al; June 26, 2014), Ury et al. (US 2015/0248525 Al;
published Sept. 3, 2013), and Chandrasekaran et al. (US 2009/0196423 Al;
Aug. 6, 2009). 2 Final Act. 3-9.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, and
20, and Appellant relies upon the arguments presented as to independent
claims 7 and 13 (see App. Br. 3-5). Claims 7 and 13 contain commensurate
limitations, and we select claim 7 as representative of the group of claims
rejected over Sanjeev, Ury, and Chandrasekaran. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2018-003651
Application 14/448,286
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Sanjeev, Ury,
Chandrasekaran, and Ruben (US 8,458,263 Bl; issued June 4, 2013). Final
Act. 9--11.
Appellant's Contentions
Appellant contends (Br. 3--4) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) because the base
combination of Sanjeev, Ury, and Chandrasekaran, and specifically Ury's
paragraphs 125 and 132, fail to disclose or suggest the inserting limitation
[ A J, recited in claim 7.
Appellant contends (Br. 4--5) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) because the base
combination of Sanjeev, Ury, and Chandrasekaran, and specifically
Chandrasekaran's paragraph 35, fails to disclose or suggest the storing
limitation [BJ, recited in claim 7.
Appellant contends (Br. 5) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claims 12 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) because the
combination of Sanjeev, Ury, Chandrasekaran, and Ruben, and specifically
Sanjeev's paragraph 45, fails to disclose or suggest the marking limitation
[CJ, recited in claims 12 and 18.
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellant has not
disputed the Examiner's articulated reasoning and findings found at pages
4--6 of the Answer, including the Examiner's reliance on Ruben as teaching
or suggesting limitation [CJ recited in claim 12 and similarly recited in claim
18.
4
Appeal 2018-003651
Application 14/448,286
Principal Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellant's arguments in the App. Brief (Br. 3-5), the
following principal issues are presented on appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19,
and 20 as being obvious because the combination of Sanjeev, Ury, and
Chandrasekaran fails to teach or suggest limitations [ A J and [BJ recited in
representative claim 7?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 12 and 18 because the
base combination of Sanjeev, Ury, Chandrasekaran, and Ruben fails to teach
or suggest limitation [CJ, as recited in each of dependent claims 12 and 18?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 3-11) in light
of Appellant's arguments (Br. 3-5) that the Examiner has erred. Appellant's
arguments are not persuasive of error.
Claims 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20
We disagree with Appellant's arguments (Br. 3-5) as to independent
claim 7. With regard to independent claim 7, we adopt as our own ( 1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-5), and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to the Appellant's Appeal
Brief (Ans. 3---6). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and
suggestions of the references as follows.
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 4--5) that Ury's
paragraphs 125 and 13 2 teach or suggest the inserting limitation [ A J as
5
Appeal 2018-003651
Application 14/448,286
recited in claim 7. We also agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 5; Ans. 5-6)
that Chandrasekaran's paragraph 35 and Figure 7 (showing message digest
tables 735 and trusted store 730) teach or suggest limitation [BJ as recited in
claim 7.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not sufficiently shown the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 for obviousness, and Appellants'
contentions that the combination fails to disclose or suggest limitations [ A J
and [BJ of claim 7 are not persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative claim 7, and claims 8, 9,
13-15, 17, 19, and 20 grouped therewith.
Claims 12 and 18
With regard to dependent claims 12 and 18, which each contain
marking limitation [CJ, Appellant's arguments (Br. 5) are not persuasive of
Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 10; Ans. 6) that
Ruben's column 8, lines 33--45 teaches or suggests limitation [CJ recited in
dependent claim 12 and similarly recited in dependent claim 18.
Notably, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's reliance upon
Ruben as teaching limitation [CJ, and instead argues the merits of Sanjeev.
We agree with the Examiner's findings as to the teachings and suggestions
of each of Sanjeev, Ury, Chandrasekaran, and Ruben. As noted by the
Examiner, Appellant is arguing the shortcomings of Sanjeev (as not teaching
marking limitation [CJ) when the Examiner has relied upon Ruben as
teaching this limitation (Final Act. 9-11; Ans. 6). 3
3 We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in
isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a
6
Appeal 2018-003651
Application 14/448,286
In this light, Appellant's arguments as to dependent claims 12 and 18
(Br. 5) concerning the individual shortcomings in the teachings of Sanjeev
are not persuasive, and are not convincing of the non-obviousness of the
claimed invention set forth in dependent claims 12 and 18.
CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting:
(1) representative claim 7 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Sanjeev, Ury, and
Chandrasekaran; and/ or
(2) dependent claims 12 and 18 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Sanjeev, Ury, Chandrasekaran,
and Ruben.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 7-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are
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).
AFFIRMED
whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(finding one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references).
7