Appeal No. 2006-1084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,334
1 at a destination node to reconstruct a multi-packet communication to the
2 different environment of intercepting data packets intended for elsewhere to
3 determine network access. Secondly, the Examiner has articulated no basis
4 why, for purposes of monitoring network access, an access rule must
5 necessarily be applied to an entire multi-packet communication and not
6 individual data packets on a packet by packet basis.
7 The Obviousness Rejection of
8 Claim 10 over Engel and Shwed
9
10 Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and adds the step of “executing first-
11 line network intrusion detection at an entry point of said network, such that
12 transmissions from nodes that are external to said network are subject to
13 first-line network intrusion restriction rules, said first-line network intrusion
14 detection being independent of said step of applying said access rules.”
15 Shwed is relied on by the Examiner to show a first-line network intrusion
16 detection that is independent of the step of applying the access rules, and
17 does not make up for the deficiencies of Engel as already discussed above
18 with regard to the anticipation rejection of claim 1 over Engel.
19 The Obviousness Rejections of Claims 2, 3 and 13
20 over Abraham and Lodin and
21 over Abraham and Stein
22
23 Claim 2 depends from independent claim 1, and claim 3 depends from
24 claim 2. Claim 13 depends from claim 12 which depends from independent
25 claim 11. Independent claims 1 and 11 had already been rejected by the
26 Examiner as anticipated by Abraham. References Lodin and Stein are each
27 relied on to meet the additional features of the dependent claims, and do not
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013