Ex Parte Vanover et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2015

12277563 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/277,563 11125/2008
58127 7590 01/01/2016
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael T. Vanover
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.
RPS920080057USNP
(710.077
CONFIRMATION NO.
6253
EXAMINER
THIAW, CATHERINE B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
0110112016 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 MICHAEL T. VANOVER, STEVEN R. PERRIN,
JUSTIN T. DUBS, JENNIFER G. ZAWACKI, and JAMES J.
THRASHER
Appeal2014-002832
Application 12/277,563
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, STACY B. MARGOLIES, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-002832
Application 12/277,563
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to facilitating access to data from
virtual private networks (VPN) regardless of the computing platform power
state. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a physical computing device having:
a mam memory;
a dedicated memory different from said main memory, said
dedicated memory acting to store data associated with a virtual
private network;
a processor which manages credentialing related to accessing
data using a virtual private network;
said processor acting to:
receive data from a virtual private network and direct such data
to said dedicated memory;
manage a credentialing process related to accessing a virtual
private network and accessing data retrieved from a virtual
private network and stored in said dedicated memory; and
provide access to data in said dedicated memory responsive to a
successful credentialing process;
wherein said processor further performs unattended data
retrieval and storage to said dedicated memory when said
physical computing device is in a low-power state and
connected to a virtual private network.
2
Appeal2014-002832
Application 12/277,563
THE REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ober US 8,006, 110 B2 Aug. 23, 2011
THE REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ober.
THE ISSUES
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Ober
teaches or suggests the limitation of "wherein said processor further
performs unattended data retrieval and storage to said dedicated memory
when said physical computing device is in a low-power state and connected
to a virtual private network" as recited in claim 1, and that Ober teaches or
suggests the limitation of "said processor acts to manage a credentialing
process when said physical computing device is not connected with a virtual
private network," as recited in claim 2.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in the Answer and
we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Ober does not teach "wherein said processor
further performs unattended data retrieval and storage to said dedicated
memory when said physical computing device is in a low-power state and
3
Appeal2014-002832
Application 12/277,563
connected to a virtual private network" as recited in claim 1 (Br. 14 ).
Appellants assert that the Examiner relied on an improper inherency
argument by finding that retrieved data is inherently stored in some memory,
and because the memory 40 is not operational, then it would have been
obvious to store the data in memory 72 (Br.14--15). According to
Appellants, Ober teaches some data being displayed on a low power display,
but Ober does not teach "storage to said dedicated memory" as required by
claim 1 (Br. 15).
Appellants further argue with respect claim 2, that rather than
displaying VPN data to just anyone on a display, as Ober teaches, the data of
Appellants' claims are stored in a dedicated memory and a credentialing
process is in place even when the computing device is not connected (Br.
15).
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. Examined claim terms
are given their broadest reasonable meaning utilizing ordinary usage as such
claim terms would be understood by one skilled in the art "by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description." In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they
are part of "a fully integrated written instrument," ... consisting
principally of a specification that concludes with the claims.
For that reason, claims "must be read in view of the
specification, of which they are a part." ... [T]he specification
"is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the
meaning of a disputed term."
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted). Accordingly, we tum to Appellants' Specification to ascertain the
meaning of the disputed term "dedicated memory." Appellants direct us to
4
Appeal2014-002832
Application 12/277,563
their own Specification wherein in relevant part it states '" [ e ]ventually, the
system will transfer to S2, S3 or S5 modes (suspend, hibernate or power-off,
respectively) (208), during or just after which the user's credentials for the
VPN in question preferably will be stored (210) at the flash (86 in Fig. 1) or
other memory location"' (Br. 6) (emphasis added). Appellants'
Specification further states that"' [i]f the system transfers to a low-power
state (S2 or S3), then it is conceivable for the VPN processor (88 in Fig. 1)
to be operable to download data and/or VPN credentials and/or other items
even when the main system memory 46 itself powered off in such low-
power states"' (Br. 6). Thus, Appellants' Specification describes a dedicated
memory for storing data such as VPN credentials.
Consistent with Appellants' own Specification, the Examiner finds
and we agree that Ober teaches unattended retrieval of data when the
computing device is in a low-power mode because the read authentication
keys are stored in memory 72 (i.e., data stored in dedicated memory) in
order to establish a VPN connection (col. 6, 11. 35--44). Once the VPN
connection is established, processing unit 71 continues to execute VPN
client software even when processor 30 has gone to a low-power operational
state (col. 6, 11. 51-55). Thus, Ober teaches the disputed limitation
"wherein said processor further performs unattended data retrieval and
storage to said dedicated memory when said physical computing device is in
a low-power state and connected to a virtual private network" because the
VPN connection data are retrieved to establish VPN connection (i.e.,
unattended data) are stored in memory 72 (i.e., dedicated memory) to
establish VPN connection even at a low-power operational state.
5
Appeal2014-002832
Application 12/277,563
We further agree with the Examiner's findings (Ans. 4) that Ober
teaches retrieving email subject lines of new incoming emails and displaying
of the subject lines in the LR display (col. 4, 11. 8-16). We agree with the
Examiner that although Ober teaches receiving this type of data, 1 Ober is
silent regarding writing the data to a dedicated memory (Ans. 4). However,
we also agree with the Examiner's reasonable inference that because Ober
discloses only the wireless module may be in operation in a low-power state
(col. 5, 11. 49-52), it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time
of the invention to store the data received in low-power mode into memory
72 in the wireless module because it would allow the computing system to
stay in low-power mode and save energy (Ans. 4). Storing the retrieved data
in memory 72 in the wireless module would not change the functioning of
the computing device in low-power mode and would not need unreasonable
experimentation (Ans. 4).
With respect to claim 2, we also agree with the Examiner's findings
(Ans. 5). In particular, we agree with the Examiner that Ober teaches
memory 72 stores VPN authentication data used to establish VPN
connection (col. 6, 11. 3 5--44 ), the wireless module is configured by entering
1 We note in passing, and without relying on this notation for our decision
herein, that the type of "data" being stored constitutes non-functional
descriptive material which is generally not given patentable weight when
determining patentability of an invention over the prior art. In re Gulack,
703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The PTO may not disregard claim
limitations comprised of printed matter. See Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1384; see
also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981). However, the Examiner
need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and
unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the
substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed Cir. 1994); In re
Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
6
Appeal2014-002832
Application 12/277,563
passwords and authentication keys in memory before establishing a VPN
connection (col. 7, 11. 52----67), the processing unit 71 executes the VPN client
software using the authentication keys (col. 6, 11. 32--41 ), and the processing
unit 71 can initiate and maintain autonomously the VPN client software
without involvement of the processor 30 (col. 4, 11. 38-55) (Ans. 5). Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that the processing unit 71 manages the
credentialing process in order to establish a VPN connection, meeting the
limitation recited in claim 2: said processor acts to manage a credentialing
process when said physical computing device is not connected with a virtual
private network (Ans. 5).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 and
for the same reasons the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-19.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Ober teaches or suggests the
limitation of "wherein said processor further performs unattended data
retrieval and storage to said dedicated memory when said physical
computing device is in a low-power state and connected to a virtual private
network" as recited in claim 1, and that Ober teaches or suggests the
limitation of "said processor acts to manage a credentialing process when
said physical computing device is not connected with a virtual private
network," as recited in claim 2.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19 is
affirmed.
7
Appeal2014-002832
Application 12/277,563
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) (2009).
AFFIRMED
8