Appeal No. 2006-1084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,334
1 assembled multi-packet communication (claims 11 and 15) to determine
2 access. As is indicated by the Patent Owner, the portions cited by the
3 Examiner reflect an application of access rules to each individual data
4 packet, not an assembled multi-packet communication or information
5 content acquired from an assembled multi-packet communication. In that
6 connection, note Abraham, col. 46, lines 44-49:
7 Once the IP packet has been filtered, and the
8 appropriate action for the IP packet taken by the filter
9 engine 78, the logic returns to decision block 682 and
10 awaits interception of another IP packet. Blocks 682
11 through 706 are then repeated for each IP packet
12 intercepted by the filter engine 78.
13
14 Additionally, with respect to claims 1 and 15, the Examiner has not
15 shown that Abraham discloses the non-intrusive features required by the
16 claimed invention. In that connection, the Examiner cites to Abraham in col.
17 13, lines 20-23, which portion states: “If the system administrator selects
18 the Allow Network Protocols check box in the corporate default window
19 102, IP packets communicated using a predefined list of network protocols
20 are allowed to pass through the filter engine 78 unconditionally.” That
21 description is consistent with either non-intrusive monitoring, identifying
22 and access control, or intrusive monitoring, identifying and access control.
23 The fact that a data packet of a certain type is allowed to pass through the
24 filter engine 78 unconditionally does not necessarily mean that reception of
25 the data packet, identification of the same, and determination of that data
26 packet as within a group authorized to pass through the filter
27 unconditionally, all took place without disruption of data flow.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013