UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte CHRISTOPHER H. ELVING and ARVIND SRINIVASAN

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte CHRISTOPHER H. ELVING and ARVIND SRINIVASAN Appeal Technology Center 2400 Decided: May 20, 2010 Before JAY P. LUCAS, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Application filed July 31, The real party in interest is Sun Microsystems, Inc.

2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal from a final rejection of claims 1, 6 to 13, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 30 to 36 under authority of 35 U.S.C. 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6(b). Claims 2 to 5, 14, 15, and 26 to 29 are objected to by the Examiner. Claims 16 to 19, 22, and 23 are cancelled. We reverse. Appellants invention relates to a method of efficiently handling webpage requests from client computers when the data exchange between client and server involves encrypted data. (See claim 1.) Such a method would be used, for example, in a checkout system of an online business. (See Spec. [0026].) In the words of Appellants: (Spec. [0026]). [The invention enables] upstream devices, such as a load balancer to perform sticky routing of session requests. The system and method may be implemented as part of a server farm for computer system[s] such as e-commerce sites, ticket offices, banks, or other organizations processing client requests in sessions[.] [The system and method may,] for example [be used for] shopping carts to provide secure interactions, or may otherwise interact across multiple requests with clients. Upstream devices from servers in a server farm may be switches, routers, hubs, [or] other servers that may receive and send requests. Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below: 2

3 1. A method, comprising: an upstream device receiving a client request; the upstream device determining whether the client request is associated with an established session; the upstream device selecting one of a plurality of servers and sending the client request to the selected server if the client request is not associated with an established session; the selected server generating a session ID and providing a unique ID in response to the client request, and sending the session ID and unique ID to the client if the client request is not associated with an established session, wherein the unique ID comprises encrypted data identifying the selected server; and the upstream device identifying one of the plurality of servers from encrypted data of a unique ID provided with the client request, and sending the client request to the identified server if the client request is associated with an established session. appeal is: The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on Brendel US 6,772,333 B1 Aug. 03, 2004 (filed Sep. 01, 1999) Merriam-Webster s Collegiate Dictionary 381 (10 th ed. Merriam- Webster, Inc. 1999). 3

4 REJECTION The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: Claims 1, 6 to 13, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 30 to 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for being anticipated by Brendel. Appellants contend that Brendel does not anticipate the claimed subject matter for failure of the references to teach the claimed upstream device identifying one of the plurality of servers from encrypted data of a unique ID provided with the client request (claim 1) (Board s emphasis). (See App. Br. 11, top to middle.) The Examiner contends that each of the claims is properly rejected (Ans. 9, top). We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments that 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 (c)(1)(vii). ISSUE The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The issue specifically turns on whether Brendel teaches Appellants claimed upstream device identifying one of the plurality of servers from encrypted data of a unique ID provided with the client request (claim 1). More specifically, the issue is whether Brendel teaches identifying its servers by reading the ID s encrypted data, as recited in claim 1, as opposed to reading unencrypted data. 4

5 FINDINGS OF FACT The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance of the evidence. Disclosure 1. Appellants have invented a method and system of maintaining session information during a series of related webpage transactions. (See Spec. [0003].) Maintaining a session state is advantageous when, for example, a user browses an e-commerce site and adds items to a shopping cart (id.). So-called sticky sessions are maintained by assigning a client computer s requests for webpages to a particular server, instead of arbitrarily routing the requests to various servers ( [0011] and [0012]). An upstream device, known as a load balancer, reads unencrypted data, identifying the session ID associated with the related webpage requests and routing requests accordingly. (See [0011]; claim 1.) Brendel 2. The Brendel reference discloses maintaining session information during a series of related webpage transactions. (See col. 7, ll ). Brendel s load balancer reads unencrypted data to identify the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) session ID associated with a particular series of client requests (col. 7, ll ; col. 8, ll ; col. 11, ll ). PRINCIPLES OF LAW Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, (Fed. Cir. 2006). 5

6 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has cautioned against an unreasonably broad claim construction: Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to give all claims their broadest reasonable construction [ ], this court has instructed that any such construction be consistent with the specification,... and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed.Cir.1990). The PTO s construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest construction rubric coupled with the term comprising does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent. See Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940). In re Suitco Surface, Inc., No , 2010 WL , at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2010). ANALYSIS From our review of the administrative record, we find that the Examiner presents the conclusions of unpatentability on pages 3 to 6 of the Examiner s Answer. In opposition, Appellants present one dispositive argument. 6

7 Arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 6 to 13, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 30 to 36 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) The Examiner finds that Brendel teaches Appellants claimed upstream device identifying one of the plurality of servers from encrypted data of a unique ID provided with the client request (claim 1) at column 15, lines 4 to 7 of the patent (Ans. 5, top). Appellants contend: Brendel s load balancer [i.e., an upstream device] does not identify a server from encrypted data of a unique ID. Instead[,] Brendel teaches that the ID used by Brendel s load balancer is a clear-text field and that the load balancer cannot read encrypted data. (App. Br. 11, top to middle). We find Appellants contention persuasive and dispositive of this appeal. Appellants method and system maintain session information during a series of related webpage transactions (FF#1). Maintaining a session state is advantageous when, for example, a user browses an e-commerce site and adds items to a shopping cart (id.). So-called sticky sessions are maintained by assigning a client computer s requests for webpages to a particular server, instead of arbitrarily routing the requests to various servers (id.). An upstream device, known in the reference as a load balancer, reads unencrypted data, identifying the session ID associated with the related webpage requests and routing those requests accordingly (id.). Although Brendel discloses maintaining session information during a series of related webpage transactions (FF#2), Brendel s load balancer (cited as Appellants claimed upstream device ) only reads unencrypted data to identify the server session ID (id.). Where Brendel discloses that the server 7

8 session ID could be encoded in the SSL session ID, we decline to say that encoded (Brendel) means encrypted (claim 1), as proposed by the Examiner (Ans. 8, top). We note the patent makes clear that All encrypted connections from the client to the server have the SSL session ID in one of the first packets of the connection, stored in an unencrypted field that is readable by the load-balancer, even though the data payload is encrypted. (Col. 8, ll ). To be clear, Brendel s server session ID does not arrive at the load-balancer in an encrypted form (id.). Nor is the server session ID decrypted by the load-balancer upon arrival at the load-balancer (id.). For all of the above-stated reasons, we find error in the rejection of claim 1. Claims 6 to 13, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 30 to 36 stand with claim 1. CONCLUSION OF LAW Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 6 to 13, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 30 to 36. DECISION We reverse the Examiner s rejection of claims 1, 6 to 13, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 30 to 36. REVERSED 8

9 peb MHKKG/Oracle (Sun) P.O. BOX 398 AUSTIN, TX