Ex Parte 7,591,005 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2014

95001434 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014)

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 08/29/2014
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
RIMELL, SAMUEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2014 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 APPEAL

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

2
Patent Owner Centrify Corporation (“Patent Owner”) appeals under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-
9.1 Third Party Requester Quest Software, Inc. (“Third Party Requester”)
responds to the Patent Owner’s appeal.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a). An oral hearing was conducted with the
Requester and Patent Owner on July 30, 2014.3
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
United States Patent 7,591,005 B2 (hereinafter the “’005 Patent”),
issued to Paul Moore on September 15, 2009, is the subject of the current
inter partes reexamination.
The ’005 Patent is the subject of a civil action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, which is currently
stayed. See PO App. Br. 3.

1 See Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief, filed April 17, 2012 (hereinafter “PO
App. Br.”), at 3; Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 17, 2012, incorporating by
reference the Examiner’s Right of Appeal Notice, mailed January 24, 2012
(hereinafter “RAN”). The Patent Owner also filed a reply brief. See Patent
Owner’s Rebuttal Brief, filed August 14, 2012 (hereinafter “PO Reply Br.”).
2 See Third Party Requester’s Respondent Brief, filed May 10, 2012
(hereinafter “TPR Resp. Br.”).
3 See Transcript of Oral Hearing dated July 30, 2014 (hereinafter “Tr.”).
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

3
THE INVENTION
The ’005 Patent generally relates to a method of detecting when a user
logs into a Unix computer that a user’s local log-in name should be replaced
by a network log-in name for network authentication. ’005 Patent, Abstract.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the appealed subject matter, has not
been amended during reexamination and reads as follows:
1. A computer-readable medium containing instructions
that, when executed by a computing system, cause the system
to perform operations comprising:
detecting when a user attempts to log into the computing
system;
determining if a local log-in name supplied by the user
should be replaced by a network log-in name used for network-
wide authentication, wherein the determination comprises
searching for the local log-in name in a mapping table, the
mapping table being stored in a database on a second
computing system that is accessible via a network;
replacing the local log-in name with the network log-in
name if so determined; and
sending the log-in name to an authenticator to
authenticate the user for logging into the computing system.

App. Br., Claims App’x (emphasis added).

PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following references:

Hewlitt-Packard Company, HP CIFS Client A.01.09 Administrator's Guide:
HP=UX 11.0 and 11i version 1 and 2, August 2003 (“HP Administrator’s
Guide”)

Samba Team, 5mb.conf.5.html manual, December 15,2003 (“Samba Suite
Configuration File”)
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

4

University of Illinois, Pam authsrv.5 manual, February 18,2003 (“Pam
Module”)

Mike Eisler et al., Managing NFS and NIS 1, 32-33, 43-46 (2nd ed. July 1,
2001) (“Eisler”)

The Examiner adopts, or adopts with modification, the following
rejections proposed by the Requester:
1. The rejection of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated HP Administrator’s Guide.
2. The rejection of Claims 2 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Samba Suite Configuration File and HP
Administrator’s Guide.
3. The rejection of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pam Module and HP Administrator’s Guide.
4. The rejection of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pam Module and Samba Suite Configuration
File.
5. The rejection of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Samba Suite Configuration File and Eisler.
6. The rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pam Module and HP Administrator’s Guide.

ISSUES

Only issues contested by the Patent Owner and Third Party Requester
have been considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii)(2011); In re Jung,
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

5
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075-76 (BPAI 2010).
The issues before us are:
1. Did the Examiner err by finding that a server computer is within
the scope of the claimed computing system?
2. Did the Examiner err by rejecting the instant claims as anticipated
by HP Administrator’s Guide?
3. Did the Examiner err by rejecting the instant claims as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the cited prior art combinations?

ANALYSIS
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Computing System
The crux of the dispute here is whether a server computer is within the
scope of the claimed computing system. See PO App. Br 11-16; TPR Resp.
Br. 6. We therefore begin our analysis by first considering the scope and
meaning of the “computing system,” which must be given its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the disclosure in the ’005 patent.
See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see
also In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (during a
reexamination proceeding, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims).
Patent Owner asserts that the Specification makes clear that the
claimed computing system is limited only to a user computer. PO App. Br.
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

6
11-12. Particularly, according to the Patent Owner, construing the claimed
computing system to be a user computer or a server computer is inconsistent
with the Specification. See PO App. Br. 11-12; PO Reply Br. 3-6. The
Examiner, on the other hand, finds that “patent owner is using an overly
narrow interpretation of the claim language that is not supported by the
specification and reading limitations into the claims.” RAN 12.
Patent Owner’s arguments lack merit and we find them unpersuasive.
For example, Patent Owner contends that only user computers, not server
computers, have physically connected keyboards. See PO App. Br. 11
(“Although a user typically also logs into a server computer via a keyboard,
as is well known in the art, the user’s keyboard is NOT physically connected
to the server computer . . . .”). Shortly thereafter, Patent Owner expressly
admits that a user computer, such as the depicted Unix computer with the
physically connected keyboard, may be a server computer. PO App. Br. 11;
PO Reply Br. 4. As such, use of a physically connected keyboard fails to
support Patent Owner’s contention. Also, as Third Party Requester points
out, certain users may log onto a server computer via a directly-connected
keyboard. TPR Resp. Br. 7.
Patent Owner’s reliance on the Specification’s use of “Unix
computer” and “Unix host computer” to limit the claimed computing system
only to a user computer is also unwarranted. PO App. Br. 11; see also PO
Reply Br. 4-5. First, we note that the Specification here does not express a
clear intent to deviate from the term’s plain meaning. See Thorner v. Sony
Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is not
enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

7
in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must clearly express an
intent to redefine the term.”)(citations omitted). In other words, even
assuming arguendo that the Specification only discloses a single
embodiment with a user computer, this alone would still not limit the scope
of the claimed computing system.
Moreover, as Patent Owner admits, a “Unix computer” may be a
server computer and further a “Unix host computer” is known in the art to
refer to a server computer. See e.g., PO App. Br. 11-12 (“[T]he term ‘host
computer’ is sometimes considered to be a server computer, and not a user
computer.”). Therefore, we find Patent Owner’s argument unconvincing.
We similarly reject the Patent Owner’s contention that it is
“irrelevant” that a user computer may “function as a server” since “at the
time of log-in covered by the claims, the computer being logged into is only
functioning as a user computer and not a server computer.” PO App. Br. 12.
The claims here include no such functional limitation, nor any time restraint.
See PO App. Br., Claims App’x. This argument, then, is not commensurate
with the scope of the claims and is thus unpersuasive.
We next find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that the
Specification’s definition of local login name is inconsistent with construing
a computing system to be a user computer or a server computer. Patent
Owner here appears to argue that the defined local login name “makes it
clear that the computing system which is being logged into is one with a
single user account on that computer.” PO App. Br. 12. In other words,
because there is only a single user account on the computer, it cannot be a
server computer which would have more than one user account. This
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

8
argument, however, mischaracterizes the recited definition. The
Specification states that the username is unique to a single user account
within that computer, not that the computer may only have one user account.
See ’005 Patent, col. 3, ll. 43-46.
Then, for the first time in the Reply Brief, Patent Owner relies on the
Background of the Specification to assert that “the specification and
drawings make it abundantly clear that the only reason the invention exists is
for use on a user or client computer and it has no application for use in
connection with a server computer and does contain any disclosure which
relates in any way to a user logging into a server computer.” PO Reply Br.
3. Patent Owner further asserts, again for the first time in the Reply Brief,
that:
The invention specifically deals with the problem which is
created when those user computers are connected to a network
authenticator for authentication because the special “root”
account cannot be authenticated by a network authenticator
since all user account names on the authenticator must be
unique. Since all Unix computers on a network normally use
the root account for use by network administrators, the
uniqueness required by a network authenticator does not exist.

PO Reply Br. 3-4.4

4 As noted above, these arguments were raised for the first time in the Reply
Brief and are therefore are untimely. Compare PO Reply Br. 3-4 with App.
Br. 11-13. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
(informative) (“[The reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments
that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the
Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”). As such, Third Party Requester, as
well as the Examiner, have not been afforded the opportunity to respond to
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

9
While we recognize that the Background of the ’005 Patent describes
issues that may arise logging into a stand-alone or user computer, we
nevertheless find the Patent Owner’s argument unpersuasive. First, the
claims here do not recite a computer or a Unix computer but instead
expressly recite a notably broader term -- a computing system.
Second, the ’005 Patent Specification includes no definition limiting
the claim only to a user computer. To the contrary, the ’005 Patent
Specification refers to a Unix host computer, which Patent Owner admits is
known to sometimes refer to a server computer. See PO App. Br. 12 (citing
’005 Patent, col. 2, ll. 36-39). Moreover, as Patent Owner also
acknowledges, a Unix computer can be used as a server. PO App. Br. 11;
PO Reply Br. 4.
Third, the ’005 Patent Specification identifies that the root user login
is one example of an issue addressed by the invention. See e.g., ’005 Patent,
col. 2, ll. 9-12 and 26-32. Further, as Third Party Requester points out,
neither the claims nor the Specification are limited to only the root user
issue. Tr. 16-17. See also Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d
1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[P]atentees [are] not required to include
within each of their claims all of [the] advantages or features described as
significant or important in the written description.”).
Finally, we are not convinced that the special login issue would be
completely inapplicable to a server computer. Patent Owner here only
addresses the issue of root user login, not other special user logins, and

these arguments. For the reasons outlined hereafter though, we find Patent
Owner’s arguments unpersuasive.
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

10
solely relies on attorney argument to support its contention. See PO Reply
Br. 4-5; see also Tr. 19. Without more, we find Patent Owner’s argument
unavailing.
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above and set forth by the
Examiner, we find 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.

Network wide authentication
Patent Owner here relies on the same arguments in asserting that the
claimed network wide authentication should be limited to authenticating a
user computer over a network. See App. Br. 12. For at least the reasons
discussed above and set forth by the Examiner, we find these arguments
unpersuasive.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER HP ADMINISTRATOR’S GUIDE
Claims 1-8
Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to HP Administrator’s Guide
rely on the contention that the claimed computing system is limited only to a
user computer. See PO App. Br. 13; Reply Br 2. However, as discussed
above, we reject the Patent Owner’s proposed construction limiting the
claimed computing system to only a user computer. As such, we agree with
the Third Party Requester, and the Examiner, that the claimed computing
system does not exclude a server computer and therefore find Patent
Owner’s arguments unpersuasive.
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

11
We also agree with the Third Party Requester that HP Administrator’s
Guide’s use of a mapping table to replace a local login name to a network
login name and then sending the network login name to log into a server
satisfies the claimed determining and sending limitations. TPR Resp. Br. 8-
10. For example, HP Administrator’s Guide expressly discloses that “PAM
NTLM supports username mapping to map a local UNIX user name to a
remote NT domain user name to use for authentication.” HP Administrator’s
Guide p. 106)(emphasis added).
Patent Owner presents no further arguments of patentability with
respect to HP Administrator’s Guide. We, therefore, find no error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 as anticipated by HP Administrator’s
Guide and affirm the rejection.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SAMBA SUITE CONFIGURATION FILE
AND HP ADMINISTRATOR’S GUIDE
Claims 2 and 6
Patent Owner presents no separate arguments of patentability with
respect to claims 2 and 6. See PO App. Br. 16 (noting that HP
Administrator’s Guide teaches the additional elements of claims 2 and 8).
As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claimed computing system may be a server computer and agree that HP
Administrator’s Guide anticipates claims 1 and 5 from which claims 2 and 6
depend. See RAN 7; see also TPR Resp. Br. 10-11. Because we reject
Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to base claims 1 and 5, we are also
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 6 as obvious
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

12
over the Samba Suit Configuration File and HP Administrator’s Guide
combined.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PAM MODULE AND
HP ADMINISTRATOR’S GUIDE
Claims 1-9
Patent Owner here again relies on the contention that the claimed
computing system is limited to a user computer for original claims 1-8 (PO
App. Br. 16-17), as well as for newly added claim 9. PO App. Br. 21-22.
For example, with respect to claim 9, Patent Owner argues that “Pam
[Module] does not teach authenticating the user to the user’s computer.” PO
App. Br. 22.
As discussed above, we do not agree that the claimed computing
system is limited to only a user computer. Instead, we agree with the Third
Party Requester, and the Examiner, that the claimed computing system does
not exclude a server computer. We also agree then with the Third Party
Requester, and the Examiner, that Pam Module’s use of a mapping table to
replace a local login name to a network login name and then sending the
network login name to login to a server satisfies the claimed determining
and sending limitations. See TPR Resp. Br. 11-12; 15-16; RAN 12.
Patent Owner presents no further arguments of patentability with
respect to Pam Module or HP Administrator’s Guide. We, therefore, find no
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 as obvious over Pam Module
and HP Administrator’s Guide combined and affirm the rejections.

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

13
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PAM MODULE AND SAMBA SUIT
CONFIGURATION FILE
Claims 1-8
Patent Owner here again relies on the contention that the claimed
computing system is limited to a user computer. PO App. Br. 17-19. For
example, Patent Owner contends that “Pam [Module] does not teach
authenticating the user to the user’s computer.” PO App. Br. 22. Patent
Owner also challenges the teachings of Samba Suite Configuration File,
asserting that Samba Suite Configuration File, like Pam Module and HP
Administrator’s Guide, uses the described mapping tables “so that a DOS or
Windows user can log into a particular server, the Unix box, the DOS or
Windows machine being the user computer.” PO. App. Br. 18.
As discussed above, we do not agree that the claimed computing
system is limited to only a user computer. Instead, we agree with the Third
Party Requester, and the Examiner, that the claimed computing system does
not exclude a server computer. We also agree then with the Third Party
Requester, and the Examiner, that Pam Module’s use of a mapping table to
replace a local login name to a network login name and then sending the
network login name to login to a server satisfies the claimed determining
and sending limitations. See TPR Resp. Br. 12-13.
Additionally, Patent Owner argues that “Pam [module] merely
provides that a local log-in name is mapped to a user name in the authsrv
database, and there is no teaching or suggestion that such replacement (to the
extent it occurs) uses a network log-in name used for network-wide
authentication, as required by element (c).” PO App. Br. 17. But Patent
Appeal 2014-005266
Reexamination Control 95/001,434
Patent 7,591,005

14
Owner fails to persuasively respond to the Third Party Requester’s rebuttal
that a skilled artisan would understand “authsrv” to “implement[] a network
authentication service on Unix based networks,” citing Ewy as support. PO
App. Br. 18. We are thus unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
We, therefore, find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8
as obvious over Pam Module and Samba Suite Configuration File combined
and affirm the rejection.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SAMBA SUITE
CONFIGURATION FILE AND EISLER
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8
Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to Samba Suite Configuration
File rely on the contention that the claimed computing system is limited to a
user computer. See PO App. Br. 19-21. However, as discussed above, we
reject the Patent Owner’s proposed construction limiting the claimed
computing system to only a user computer. As such, we agree with the
Third Party Requester, and the Examiner, that the claimed computing system
does not exclude a server and that Samba Suite Configuration File teaches
the claimed limitation. See TPR Resp. Br. 13-15; RAN 8-12.
Patent Owner presents no further arguments of patentability with
respect to Samba Suite Configuration File and Eisler. We, therefore, find no
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 as obvious over
Samba Suite Configuration File and Eisler and affirm the rejection.

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

15
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9 is affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.
This is a final decision. Parties to the proceeding seeking judicial
review of the decision must comply with the notice and service requirements
of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2. For judicial review of decisions arising out of
proceedings referenced in 37 C.F.R. § 90.1, the notice and service
requirements are governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1,
2012.

AFFIRMED

peb

PATENT OWNER:
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:

COOLEY LLP
ATTN: Patent Group
777 6th Street, Nw., Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20001