CTERA Networks, Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 16, 2021

2019004598 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 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.
14/674,225 03/31/2015 Aron Brand CTRA P0010 8495
122066 7590 02/16/2021
M&B IP Analysts, LLC
150 Morristown Road
Suite 205
Bernardsville, NJ 07924-2626
EXAMINER
SAVENKOV, VADIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2432
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
pair@mb-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARON BRAND
____________

Appeal 2019-004598
Application 14/674,225
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 5–14, 16–19, and 23–31, i.e., all pending claims. 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 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest
as CTERA Networks, Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004598
Application 14/674,225

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The Specification states that the invention “relates generally to
systems and methods for providing links to content, and more specifically
to providing links to content featuring enhanced security.” Spec. ¶ 2.2 The
Specification explains that in “file-based collaboration systems, it is
common to allow sharing of files via ‘invitation links’ which incorporate
some secret code incorporated in, e.g., a URL, thereby granting access to
some file or folder.” Id. ¶ 3. “Such systems may allow one user to send
a link to another user over e-mail, social network websites, or any other
communication medium, wherein the other user may view or modify the
contents of such file or folder by clicking on the link.” Id.
The Specification also explains that the “disclosure or compromise
of a secret code allows an attacker to gain access to the target file or folder.”
Spec. ¶ 4. Hence, “it is often desirable to provide further protection
for these links, such as by providing multiple authentication factors
(‘multifactor authentication’) in addition to the secret code embedded
in a URL.” Id. ¶ 5.
The Specification describes a drawback in existing systems that
provide multifactor authentication, i.e., requiring “the recipient to either
register a user account in the system or previously own such an account.”
Spec. ¶ 5. According to the Specification, “it may be prohibitive or

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed March 31, 2015; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed August 10, 2018; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
December 20, 2018; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 27,
2019; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed May 21, 2019.
Appeal 2019-004598
Application 14/674,225

3
otherwise inconvenient for the recipient to go through the complex process
of registering a new user account, dealing with the overhead of remembering
another password, and so on.” Id. Moreover, “[i]t is often desirable to
invite external users to a corporate system in which they do not have an
account.” Id.
Hence, the invention endeavors to provide “multifactor authentication
that does not require possession of a user account to access.” Spec. ¶ 6.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads
as follows:
1. A method for providing invitation links to access a
protected resource, comprising:
creating a plurality of invitation links for accessing the
protected resource, each of the invitation links of the plurality
includes a secret invitation code encoded therein, the secret
invitation code of each of the invitation links of the plurality
being different from the secret invitation code any of the other
invitation links of the plurality;
sending, to at least one invitee, at least one of the
invitation links for accessing the protected resource, wherein
the secret invitation code is unique to each invitee, the
invitation link is sent to the at least one invitee through a
primary communication channel;
upon detecting an attempt to access the at least one
invitation link, determining whether the encoded secret
invitation code matches a known secret invitation code;
upon determining that the secret invitation code matches
the known secret invitation code, performing a verification
process to authenticate the invitee via a secondary channel of
communication, the verification process including transmitting
via the secondary channel of communication a verification
Appeal 2019-004598
Application 14/674,225

4
challenge including information upon which the verification
process is based; and
upon determining that the verification process has been
passed, granting access to the protected resource;
wherein the protected resource is stored in a cloud
storage system and is one of at least a file and a folder.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
relies on the following prior art:
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 5–9, 11–13, 16–19, and 23–27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kantor and Kulkarni. Final Act. 5–9.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kantor, Kulkarni, and Bouvet. Final Act. 9–10.
Claims 14 and 28–31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kantor, Kulkarni, and Weinstein. Final Act. 10–11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the § 103 rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before us and for
Name Reference Date
Kantor et al. (“Kantor”) US 2013/0067594 A1 Mar. 14, 2013
Kulkarni et al. (“Kulkarni”) US 8,434,133 B2 Apr. 30, 2013
Bouvet et al. (“Bouvet”) US 2016/0044043 A1 Feb. 11, 2016
(filed Mar. 25, 2014)
Weinstein et al.
(“Weinstein”)
US 9,768,969 B2 Sept. 19, 2017
(filed June 8, 2012)
Appeal 2019-004598
Application 14/674,225

5
the reasons explained below, we agree with Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of the references teach or
suggest the claimed subject matter. We provide the following to address and
emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 5–9, 11–13, 16–19, and 23–27
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 16, 17, 23, AND 26
As noted above, the § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 16, 17,
23, and 26 rests on Kantor and Kulkarni. See Final Act. 5–6, 8–9.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because the
references fail to teach or suggest the following limitation in claims 1 and 16
and similar limitations in claims 17, 23, and 26: “performing a verification
process to authenticate the invitee via a secondary channel of
communication, the verification process including transmitting via the
secondary channel of communication a verification challenge including
information upon which the verification process is based.” See Appeal
Br. 13–15; Reply Br. 4–8. The Examiner cites Kulkarni as teaching or
suggesting the disputed limitations in claims 1, 16, 17, 23, and 26. See Final
Act. 3, 6, 8–9 (citing Kulkarni 2:2–19, 15:26–34, code (57)); Ans. 5–6
(citing Kulkarni 15:26–34, 17:35–38, 19:30–36, 20:32–49, Figs. 7B2.1,
7B2.2, 8A).
In particular, Appellant contends that Kulkarni discloses transmitting
a token “over the first channel, not the second channel,” and an
“authentication parameter is only received over the second channel.”
Appeal Br. 13 (emphases omitted) (citing Kulkarni 2:8–19); see Reply Br.
4–5. According to Appellant, “outgoing information in Kulkarni appears to
Appeal 2019-004598
Application 14/674,225

6
be sent only over the first channel.” Appeal Br. 13 (emphases omitted)
(citing Kulkarni 7:19–31, 7:57–61, 9:7–27, 11:26–31); see Reply Br. 4–5.
Further, Appellant asserts that the claims require performing
“a verification process to authenticate the invitee via a secondary channel
of communication,” not simply “that the secondary channel is used during
the verification process.” Reply Br. 4–5 (emphasis by Appellant).
Appellant also asserts that the claims differ from Kulkarni because Kulkarni
discloses “authentication over a second channel” but not “transmission of
the token over a second channel.” Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted) (citing
Kulkarni 20:12–49); see id. at 6–7.
The Examiner determines that Kulkarni discloses “authentication
via two channels.” Final Act. 6 (citing Kulkarni 2:8–19, code (57)).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Kulkarni discloses “creating a token
associated with a session over an initial channel, as well as prompting a user
to authorize the transaction associated with the token,” where “the
prompting and the authorization takes place over a second channel.” Ans.
5–6 (citing Kulkarni 20:32–49, Fig. 8A). The Examiner finds that Kulkarni
also discloses “a second user receiving token value information out-of-band
via a first user and providing the token value information for approving
a transaction via a second channel.” Ans. 6 (citing Kulkarni 17:35–38).
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Kulkarni
teach or suggest the disputed limitations in claims 1, 16, 17, 23, and 26. See
Appeal Br. 13–15; Reply Br. 4–8. Kulkarni discloses several embodiments,
and each embodiment uses “multiple channels to authenticate a user.” See,
e.g., Kulkarni code (57), 6:33–34, 6:46–50, Figs. 2A, 7A3, 8A. In
Appeal 2019-004598
Application 14/674,225

7
particular, “a first authentication parameter from a first device associated
with a user is received over a first channel, a token value is transmitted to
the user on the first channel, and the user transmits the token value and a
second authentication parameter over a second channel.” Id. at code (57);
see also id. at 1:65–2:19, 7:19–43, 8:65–9:48, 16:60–17:38, 19:16–36,
19:62–20:49, Figs. 2A, 7A3, 8A.
In the cited portions, Kulkarni discloses embodiments that transmit
a token over a first channel and authenticate after receiving the token over
a second channel. See Kulkarni 2:2–7, 2:10–19; 17:21–35, 19:23–29,
20:32–39, Figs. 2A, 7A3, 8A. The embodiment that prompts a user to
authorize a transaction transmits the prompt over the first channel, not the
second channel as the Examiner erroneously finds. See id. at 20:1–11,
20:32–39, Fig. 8A (item 424); Ans. 5–6.
The Examiner has not adequately explained how transmitting a token
over a first channel and authenticating after receiving the token over a
second channel corresponds to “performing a verification process” by
“transmitting via the secondary channel of communication a verification
challenge including information upon which the verification process is
based” according to the disputed limitations in claims 1, 16, 17, 23, and 26.
See Final Act. 3, 6; Ans. 5–6. Because the Examiner has not adequately
explained how the cited portions of Kulkarni teach or suggest the disputed
limitations, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 16, 17, 23,
and 26.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 5–9, 11–13, 18, 19, 24, 25, AND 27
Claims 5–9 and 11–13 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1;
claims 18 and 19 depend directly from claim 17; claims 24 and 25 depend
Appeal 2019-004598
Application 14/674,225

8
directly or indirectly from claim 23; and claim 27 depends directly from
claim 26. For the reasons discussed for claims 1, 17, 23, and 26, we do not
sustain the § 103 rejection of these dependent claims.
The § 103 Rejections of Claims 10, 14, and 28–31
Claims 10, 14, 28, and 29 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1;
and claims 30 and 31 depend directly or indirectly from claim 17. On this
record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited references—
Bouvet and Weinstein—overcome the deficiency in Kulkarni discussed
above for claims 1 and 17. Hence, for the reasons discussed for claims 1
and 17, we do not sustain the § 103 rejections of claims 10, 14, and 28–31.
Because the preceding determinations resolve the § 103 rejections
for all pending claims, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments
regarding Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d
1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may
render a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–14, 16–19,
and 23–31.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–9,
11–13,
16–19,
23–27
103 Kantor, Kulkarni
1, 5–9,
11–13,
16–19,
23–27
10 103 Kantor, Kulkarni, Bouvet 10
Appeal 2019-004598
Application 14/674,225

9
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
14, 28–31 103 Kantor, Kulkarni, Weinstein 14, 28–31
Overall
Outcome
1, 5–14,
16–19,
23–31
REVERSED