2020002257 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2021)

ADOBE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 29, 2021

2020002257 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/262,123 04/25/2014 DAMIEN ANTIPA P4087-US-01/202904 2978 121363 7590 10/29/2021 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Adobe Inc.) Intellectual Property Department 2555 Grand Blvd Kansas City, MO 64108 EXAMINER MEKONEN, TESFU N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): seaton@shb.com shbdocketing@shb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAMIEN ANTIPA and ANTONIO SANSO ________________ Appeal 2020-002257 Application 14/262,123 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 10‒20, which are all the claims pending in this application.1 Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, and 9 are canceled. Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App’x.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Adobe Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002257 Application 14/262,123 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to providing visual indications of data flow between service providers and identity providers to a user to facilitate user-centric identity management. Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. One or more non-transitory computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations at a service provider that provides at least one service to a user device, the method comprising: receiving, at the service provider, an indication that an identity provider authenticated a user associated with the user device based on user credentials, wherein the identity provider manages identity information for authenticating a plurality of users and stores resources, wherein the service provider is not provided with the user credentials; providing, from the service provider to the user device, a notification for display at the user device indicating that access to one or more resources stored in association with the identity provider is to be provided to the service provider, wherein the notification is provided prior to the service provider accessing the one or more resources; upon user approval permitting access to the one or more resources stored in association with the identity provider, communicating with the identity provider to access the one or more resources, wherein the access by the service provider to the one or more resources is allowed based on a resource scope associated with the service provider that indicates a subset of media resources from among a set of media resources which the service provider is permitted to access as determined by the identity provider; and Appeal 2020-002257 Application 14/262,123 3 providing, from the service provider to the user device, an indication of the subset of media resources accessed from the identity provider, wherein the indication is displayable via a rendered graphical visual representation of a data flow between the user device, the service provider, and the identity provider that includes a visualization of the subset of media resources accessed from the identity provider by the service provider. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 17‒20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D’Angelo (US 2009/0049525 A1; Feb. 19, 2009), Monjas Llorente (US 2013/0173712 A1; July 4, 2013), and Savir (US 2014/0129629 A1; May 8, 2014). Final Act. 4‒11. Claims 11‒16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D’Angelo and Savir. Final Act. 12‒16. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds D’Angelo, Monjas Llorente, and Savir teach or suggest “wherein the indication is displayable via a rendered graphical visual representation of a data flow between the user device, the service provider, and the identity provider that includes a visualization of the subset of media resources accessed from the identity provider by the service provider,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 6‒9. In particular, the Examiner finds Savir teaches a service provider providing a form to a user, where the form includes information accessed by the service provider from a user’s social network. Final Act. 6 (citing Savir ¶ 68). The Examiner finds the process of the service provider obtaining the information from the social network is a data flow or communication between the three claimed parties and the form that is populated with this information is displayed to the user. Ans. 7. Appeal 2020-002257 Application 14/262,123 4 Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Savir teaches displaying a populated form that is the result of communication between a service provider and an identity provider, but does not teach displaying a “rendered graphical visual representation of a data flow between the user device, the service provider, and the identity provider,” as claimed. See Appeal Br. 14‒ 19; Reply Br. 3‒4. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Savir teaches ISA 102 (the claimed “service provider”) retrieves user information from a social network (the claimed “identity provider”) and uses this information to populate a form displayed to the user. Savir ¶ 68. However, the Examiner has failed to identify, nor have we found, any teaching of a “rendered graphical visual representation of a data flow between the user device, the service provider, and the identity provider” (emphasis added). That is, Savir teaches the form is populated with information from the user’s social network, and, therefore, the results of the claimed data flow are displayed to the user. But Savir does not discuss any visual representation of the data flow itself that was used to retrieve such information. Savir explains the data flow between the various involved parties (see, e.g., Fig. 1A, ¶ 34), but the Examiner has not identified any teaching or suggestion that this information is presented visually to the user. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to sufficiently establish that D’Angelo, Monjas Llorente, and Savir teach or suggest “wherein the indication is displayable via a rendered graphical visual representation of a data flow between the user device, the service provider, and the identity provider that includes a Appeal 2020-002257 Application 14/262,123 5 visualization of the subset of media resources accessed from the identity provider by the service provider.”2 For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 11 and 17, which recite commensurate subject matter. By virtue of their dependency from either independent claims 1, 11, and 17, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4, 6, 7, 10‒16, and 18‒20. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 17‒20 103 D’Angelo, Monjas Llorente, Savir 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 17‒20 11‒16 103 D’Angelo, Savir 11‒16 Overall Outcome 1, 4, 6, 7, 10‒ 16, 17‒20 REVERSED 2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.