Appeal No. 2006-1084
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,334
1 an intended transmission. The “screened subnet” referred to by the
2 Examiner in Figure 4 is a packet-filtering firewall that prevents direct
3 communication between a protected network from an external network.
4 Lodin, page 29, col. 2, lines 19-21 and Figure 4 (bottom). As is shown in
5 Figure 4 (bottom), one router channels communication between devices
6 inside the protected network to two bastion hosts, and another router
7 channels communication between the external untrusted network and the
8 two bastion hosts. A firewall represented by the two routers and the two
9 bastion hosts exists in the direct line of communication between devices in
10 the internal network and devices in the external network.
11 Regarding Stein, the Examiner states (Answer on pages 36-37):
12 As per Stein, it shows a basic and fundamental
13 configuration for a screened subnet (fig. 14.4) and
14 implementation of one where the proxy provides
15 transmission routing that is not in the direct path of the
16 source to destination. This well known method provides
17 for routing to occur that provides a limited and controlled
18 access to the server, see page 406.
19
20 The above-quoted statement is incorrect insofar as it is attempting to read
21 the additional features of claims 2 and 13 onto Stein. As is described on
22 page 405 of Stein and illustrated in Stein’s Figure 14.4, the screened subnet
23 is for the exclusive use of the web server and is in the direct path of access
24 by anyone to the web server. (FF. 20). If the Examiner is referring to
25 transmissions between devices on the external network and devices in the
26 internal network, the screened subnet is not in the direct path of
27 communication but it also plays no role in regulating such communications.
23
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013