Ex Parte 7,591,005 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2015

95001434 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2015)

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.
95/001,434 08/31/2010 7,591,005 QUES-001/00US
301863-2002
4416
8791 7590 12/08/2015
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
RIMELL, SAMUEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

QUEST SOFTWARE, INC.
Requester and Respondent

v.

CENTRIFY CORPORATION
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ANDREW J. DILLON, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REHEARING
In the Decision on Appeal dated August 29, 2014 (“Decision”), we
affirmed the rejections of claims 1–9. Patent Owner requests rehearing of
this decision under 37 C.F.R. § 41.79. Request for Rehearing (“Request”)
dated September 26, 2014.
1

1
Requestor responds to the Request. See Respondent’s Response to Request
for Rehearing (“TPR Rehear. Resp.”) dated October, 22, 2014. We note,
though, that on June 12, 2015 Requester indicated that they will no longer
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

2

Patent Owner contends the Board misapprehended Patent Owner’s
arguments concerning the claim terms “computing system” and “network-
wide authentication.” Request 2–10. Additionally, Patent Owner alleges
that it is “unclear” whether the Board considered the broadest reasonable
interpretation from the perspective from one of ordinary skill. Request 2–3.
We recognize that we may have misapprehended Patent Owner’s argument
regarding the ’005 patent’s disclosure of local login name. Thus, we grant
rehearing to the extent necessary to reconsider this argument, but
nonetheless, maintain the outcome of the Decision.
As we stated in the Decision, the crux of the dispute lies with the
construction of “computing system.” Patent Owner does not dispute that a
server is a computing system, but Patent Owner contends that the recited
computing system is limited only to a computing system functioning as a
user computer. See Request 2. In particular, Patent Owner relies on the
’005 patent’s description of “local login name.” Request 4. The ’005 patent
discloses that
Local log-in name is defined as a user name used to log a
user into a UNIX computer where the name is unique to a
single user account within that computer, but not necessarily
unique among log-in names provided by user accounts on other
computers and components in an attached network.
Network log-in name is defined as a user name used to
log a user into a UNIX computer on a network where the name
is unique to a single user account in an authenticator that
provides authentication services for the network.
’005 patent, col. 3, ll. 42–50.

participate in the reexamination proceeding. See Third Party Requester’s
Notice of Non-Participation Notice of Litigation Settlement, dated June 12,
2015, p. 1.
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

3

According to the Patent Owner,
since the definition of local log-in name is a “name unique to a
single user account within that computer, but not necessarily
unique among log-in names provided by user accounts on other
computers,” a person skilled in the art would quickly see that
since the local log-in name is “not necessarily unique among
log-in names provided by user accounts on other computers,”
an impossible situation is created since, if it existed, the server
computing system would allow different users with the same
log-in name to be authenticated on that server computing
system-or assuming the different users with the same log-in
name used a different password, only one of them could ever be
authenticated on that server. Therefore, a person having
ordinary skill in the art would quickly recognize that the
computing system as used in the claims could not possibly be a
server computing system since a server computing system
would not be able to distinguish two different users using the
same log-in name.
Request 6 (brackets omitted).
We, however, find Patent Owner’s arguments unconvincing. The
’005 patent disclosure relied upon by the Patent Owner merely states that the
local log-in name may not necessarily be unique. In other words, all the
local log-in names may each be unique. In fact, the Specification expressly
states that “[l]ocal log-in names must each be unique within the [mapping]
table.” ’005 patent, col. 4, l. 67–col. 5, l. 1; see also Fig. 3. One of ordinary
skill in the art, then, would understand that it is the organization of the
mapping table(s), which according to the claim is stored on a second
computing system, that addresses local log-in names, and not the manner in
which the computing system is used. We also note that the ’005 patent
describes various examples of how login names may be mapped, including
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

4

mapping multiple local log-in names to the same network log-in name. ’005
patent, col. 2, l. 66-col. 3, l.
Both the claims and Specification lack any requirement of duplicate
local log-in names or that mapping only occurs when there are duplicates.
As such, given the expressly broad language of computing system and the
lack of a clear intention to limit the recited computing system in the
Specification, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the ’005 patent’s disclosure of local log-in names as
“not necessarily unique” requires the recited computing system to be a
computing system only functioning as a user computer.
Patent Owner next asserts that the Board erred by failing to consider
that the ’005 patent describes “network-wide authentication” in a manner
fully consistent with arguments presented with respect to the construction of
network wide authorization. See Request 8–9.
2
This newly cited support,
though, is unpersuasive to support Patent Owner’s proposed narrow
interpretation. Specifically, the cited passages merely discuss how user
accounts may be organized in the prior art when a UNIX computer is
networked compared to in isolation (’005 patent, col. 1, ll. 34–55) and an
exemplary embodiment (’005 patent, col. 3, l. 66–4, l. 8). As such, these
disclosures do not suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the recited

2
We note that the Patent Owner quotes the single paragraph included in
Patent Owner’s opening brief regarding network-wide authentication, and
then points to portions of the Specification cited for the first time here in the
Request as additional support. Compare PO App. Br. 12 with Request 7–8.
These arguments are improper. See 37 C.F.R. 41.79 (b)(1)(“Arguments not
raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon
in the briefs are not permitted in the request for rehearing. . . .”).
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

5

computing system should be limited only to a computing system functioning
as user computer or that network-wide authentication means enabling the
use of a local log-in name to authenticate a user who entered a local log-in
name for logging in through a central authenticator on the network to only a
computing system functioning as a user computer.
Patent Owner further asserts that “it is unclear if the Board used the
proper test to make its determination” and further alleges that the Board
failed to take into account that the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard is considered from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the
art. Request 2–3. We disagree.
Notably, Patent Owner fails to challenge or identify error in the legal
support cited in the Decision. See Decision 5 (citing In re Suitco Surface,
Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d
1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). The Decision identifies that “under the
broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification, a skilled
artisan would understand the claimed computing system may be a server
computer.” Decision 10 (emphasis added). Moreover, as discussed in the
Decision, Patent Owner does not present any persuasive evidence supporting
how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the recited computing
system, but instead relies solely on attorney argument. See generally PO
App. Br.; PO Reply Br. For the reasons outlined in the Decision and
discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Board erred in rejecting
Patent Owner’s argument that the recited computing system is limited only
to computing systems functioning as a user computer.
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

6

Patent Owner also notes that we may have overlooked Requester’s
argument that, even if Patent Owner’s construction were to be adopted, HP
Administrator’s Guide teaches the claimed limitation of logging into a user
computing system. See Request 10. Specifically, Requester argued that a
skilled artisan would understand HP Administrator’s Guide to disclose using
a mapping table to determine whether to replace a local login name with a
network login name and using the network login name to login into both the
HP UX system as well as the Common Internet File System (CIFS) server.
TPR Resp. Br. 8–10. Upon reconsideration, we find Requester’s arguments
persuasive and find that, even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction,
HP Administrator’s Guide discloses the recited computing system. See, e.g.,
TPR Resp. Br. 8–10.
HP Common Internet File System (CIFS) provides a distributed file
system. HP Administrator’s Guide 15. The system includes an optional
Pluggable Authentication Module (PAM) that implements the Windows NT
Lan Manager (NTLM) for user authentication. Id. Of particular interest to
the dispute here, HP Administrator’s Guide describes logging into the HP-
UX system as well as logging into the CIFS server. See generally HP
Administrator’s Guide 38–41; see also HP Administrator’s Guide 18 (“. . .
users who log in to an HP-UX system will have access automatically to
CIFS-mounted file systems provided that PAM NTLM and the CIFS server
are using the same database.”).
Notably, HP Administrator’s Guide states that PAM NTLM
authenticates users logging into an HP-UX system (i.e. user computer) and
may automatically log in the authenticated users to the HP CIFS server. See,
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

7

e.g., HP Administrator’s Guide 39 (“If PAM NTLM has been configured on
the system (in/etc/pam.conf) and the user has logged into the CIFS Client
HP-UX host with PAM NTLM, the CIFS Client will attempt to reuse the
user's cached PAM NTLM credentials to authenticate the user to the CIFS
server.” (Emphasis added)).
While we recognize that these cited portions of HP Administrator’s
Guide do not expressly refer to username mapping, the HP Administrator’s
Guide, elsewhere, explains that “PAM NTLM supports username mapping
to map a local UNIX user name to a remote NT domain user name to use for
authentication” and that “successful user/password authentications are
cached for use by the CIFS client.” HP Administrator’s Guide 106; see also
Id. (“PAM NTLM supports a user map file that maps UNIX user names to
NT domain user names before authentication by the CIFS server.”). In other
words, the PAM NTLM may implement use of a username map when
logging into the HP-UX system and, then, if successful the mapped
username and password may also be used to log into the CIFS server. See,
e.g., HP Administrator’s Guide 39.
Patent Owner responds that HP Administrator’s Guide fails to
disclose the recited computing system and contends that
The HP system, as demonstrated at page 108 of HP, does not
teach a mechanism to enable [a root user to be authenticated by
a authenticator rather than by the Unix computer computing
system] which is the reason HP recommends that the
computing system (i.e., the host system (PAM UNIX)) and not
the password server (which corresponds to the claimed
authenticator) authenticate the root user.
PO Reply Br. 8. We disagree. In particular, we disagree with Patent
Owner’s interpretation that HP Administrator’s Guide general
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

8

recommendation to use the host Unix system for authentication “for security
purposes” suggests that HP Administrator’s Guide is not capable of logging
in the root user through an authenticator. The plain language of HP
Administrator’s Guide merely recommends using the host system but does
not suggest, in any way, that an authenticator is incapable or precluded from
logging in root users. See HP Administrator’s Guide 108. As such, we
agree with the Requester that HP Administrator’s Guide discloses the recited
computing system limitation, even under Patent Owner’s proposed
construction requiring the computing system to function only as a user
computer.
Patent Owner’s Request is granted to the extent that we have
reconsidered and supplemented the Decision in light of the Request, but
denied to the extent that we do not modify the outcome of the Decision.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(d), this decision is final for the purpose
of judicial review. A party seeking judicial review must timely serve notice
on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. See
37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

DENIED

Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

9

PATENT OWNER:

BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR, & ZAFMAN
ATTN: ERIC S. HYMAN
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

COOLEY LLP
ATTN: PATENT GROUP
1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400