Appeal No. 2006-2430
Application No. 10/003,747
Vaidya teaches that the prior art with respect to Vaidya’s invention did not enable
detecting network intrusions lower than the application layer of the OSI model. Col. 1, l.
63 - col. 2, l. 13. Vaidya’s contribution to the art includes a virtual processor 36 (Fig. 4)
for monitoring network data 46 to determine whether the data is associated with a
network intrusion. A register cache 40 temporarily stores information extracted from a
data packet. The virtual processor 36 obtains a data packet from a queue and extracts
MAC header information, IP header information, transport header information, and
application information from the data packet. Extraction of the packet information
enables the data collector 10 to detect network intrusions based in the different layers of
the OSI model. Col. 7, ll. 11-23.
Figure 5 of Vaidya demonstrates extraction of the MAC, IP, and transport header
information, in addition to the application information. The different types of packet
information enable generation of attack signature profiles that can recognize network
intrusions based in the different layers of the OSI model. Col. 8, ll. 40-56. Moreover,
communications protocols may be monitored at the network, transport, or application
layers for particular attack signatures. Col. 10, ll. 22-44.
Upon review of the entirety of the reference, we consider Vaidya to provide
ample support for the examiner’s finding of anticipation. Nothing in appellant’s briefs
persuades us otherwise. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 5-9 and 14-
16, not separately argued by appellant.
We turn to the rejection of claims 2-4, 10-13, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Vaidya and Holland. For dependent claims 2-4 and 10-13,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007