Ex Parte Savage et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2012

11030449 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAMES A. SAVAGE and TIM BUCHER
____________________

Appeal 2010-000852
Application 11/030,449
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000852
Application 11/030,449

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a communications
management system that manages access to a local area network or network
content by external users, applications, and devices (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 19 are exemplary claims and are reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:

at a network appliance that coordinates content within a
computer network and acts as a firewall, monitoring incoming
traffic for an access request from a requestor; and

verifying an identity of the requestor.

19. A method, comprising:

at a network appliance comprising a firewall, a policy
engine, and a database, monitoring traffic external to a network
to identify a request to authenticate from a requestor seeking
access to the network;

upon identifying the request to authenticate, performing
an identity authentication procedure to validate an identity of
the access requestor as one having permission to access the
network, the authentication procedure comprising:

Appeal 2010-000852
Application 11/030,449

3
comparing the access requestor identity with one
or more rules and/or one or more data structures stored
on the appliance and/or the network; and

based upon the comparison between the access
requestor's identity and the one or more rules and/or the
one or more data structures, determining a permissible
scope of access to various devices, applications, and
databases on the network that the access requestor may
be granted; and

granting to the access requestor direct access to a
permissible portion of the network within the permissible scope
of access.

Prior Art
Juitt US 2003/0087629 A1 May 8, 2003

Rejections
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Juitt.
Grouping of Claims
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1-18 and 25. (See
App. Br. 6-10).
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 19
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 19-24. (See App. Br.
10-11).
Appeal 2010-000852
Application 11/030,449

4
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
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-18 and 25
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Juitt because Juitt
does not disclose “at a network appliance that coordinates content within a
computer network and acts as a firewall, monitoring incoming traffic for an
access request from a requestor” (App. Br. 7). Specifically, Appellants
contend Juitt does not disclose or suggest a firewall having enhanced
functionality (id.). Additionally, Appellants argue Juitt does not teach or
suggest (1) any network appliance that coordinates data within a computer
network AND acts as a firewall and (2) further, that the Examiner is
misinterpreting “coordinate content” (Reply Br. 7-8).

Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Juitt would have taught or
suggested “at a network appliance that coordinates content within a
computer network and acts as a firewall” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Initially we note the Examiner has set forth a broad, but reasonable
interpretation of “coordinates content” in light of the Specification (Ans.
11). Appellants have not provided an explicit definition of “content” or
Appeal 2010-000852
Application 11/030,449

5
“coordinates” in their Specification. However, Appellants provide examples
of what content may include - “‘content’ includes, among other things,
software, data, information, and any other electronic materials in
conjunction with which it may be useful or desirable to employ
embodiments of the invention” (Spec. 9, ¶ [0027]). Therefore, Appellants’
own Specification states that content may be data ( id.). The Examiner
finds actions such as “managing data traffic,” “access[ing] control in a
computer network,” etc. are “coordinating content” (Ans. 11). We agree
with the Examiner that each and all of these actions are bringing data into a
common action, i.e., coordinating data. Indeed, Appellants’ own
specification indicates “coordinates” is used broadly, e.g. the web-based
service is responsive to remote users’ and devices’ requests and serves to
“coordinate communication between the remote devices and networks”
(Spec. 11, ¶ [0033]). Appellants have not presented any persuasive evidence
to convince us that the Examiner’s interpretation of “coordinates content” is
in error.
Appellants broadly define a “network appliance” as “a computer
device that includes hardware devices and software modules” (Spec. 13,
¶ [0037]). The Examiner finds the firewall of Juitt is a network appliance
(Ans. 11), and we agree.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown the firewall in Juitt
performs various functions, including “managing data traffic” or any other
functions (Rep. Br. 8-10). We take a broad but reasonable interpretation of
firewall as “a computer or computer software that prevents unauthorized
access to private data by outside computer users” (Merriam-Webster’s
Appeal 2010-000852
Application 11/030,449

6
Collegiate Dictionary 438 (10th ed. 2000)). Therefore, in light of this
interpretation, we find the firewall of Juitt prevents unauthorized access to
private data by outside computer users (Fig. 1A). It follows that Juitt would
have taught or at least fairly suggested that the firewall coordinates data
(e.g., content) within the private network (e.g., prevents unauthorized access
to private data in the private network) and acts as a firewall, monitoring
incoming traffic to prevent unauthorized access to the private data on the
private network.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
Juitt discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. Claims 2-7 and 25 depend
from independent claim 1 and were not separately argued; therefore, these
claims fall with claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, Appellants have not presented any persuasive
evidence or argument that the terms “first computing device,” “first
network,” or “external network” have different interpretations than that set
forth by the Examiner (Ans. 8). Appellants’ other arguments – that the
network appliance does not coordinate content and act as a firewall between
a first network and an external network – have been addressed above and are
not found to be persuasive.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
Juitt discloses the invention as recited in claim 8. Claims 9-18 depend from
independent claim 8 and were not separately argued; therefore, these claims
fall with claim 8. Thus, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-18
and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Juitt.

Appeal 2010-000852
Application 11/030,449

7
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 19-24
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Juitt because Juitt
does not disclose “at a network appliance comprising a firewall, a policy
engine, and a database” (App. Br. 10). Specifically, Appellants contend Juitt
does not disclose or suggest the functions of the firewall (Reply Br. 10).
Appellants also argue the wired network is not a computing device or
network appliance (App. Br. 11).

Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Juitt would have taught or
suggested “at a network appliance comprising a firewall, a policy engine,
and a database” as recited in claim 19?

ANALYSIS
Although we do not agree with Appellants that the wired network 117
shown in Figure 1A of Juitt is not a “network appliance” in light of
Appellants’ definition in their Specification (pg. 13, ¶ [0037]), the Examiner
has found the firewall of Juitt to be the network appliance (Ans. 6-7 and 16).
The Examiner has not shown the firewall of Juitt comprises a policy engine
and a database or how the identify authentication procedure in the gateway
of Juitt works with the firewall to perform the recited steps (see Ans. 6). As
such, we are constrained by the record to find the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness for the method as recited in
independent claim 19. Dependent claims 20-24 thus stand with claim 19.
Appeal 2010-000852
Application 11/030,449

8
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 19-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Juitt.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Juitt is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Juitt is reversed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc