Ex Parte Agarwal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201612482279 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/482,279 06/10/2009 48500 7590 02/29/2016 SHERIDAN ROSS P,C 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Amit Agarwal 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 4366YDT-260 6870 EXAMINER LINDSEY, MATTHEWS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2453 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/29/2016 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): cjacquet@sheridanross.com pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com edocket@sheridanross.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AMIT AGARWAL, DAVID AHRENS, MARTIN WESTHEAD, GORDON R. BRUNSON, FRANK J. BOYLE, HARSH V. MENDIRATTA, and CHANDRA RAVIPATI Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 1 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. Br. 2. Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants' disclosed and claimed "invention relates generally to communications and more specifically to authentication mechanisms employed in communication networks." Spec. 1: 5-6. Exemplary Claims Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added): 1. A method of assessing access perm1ss10ns for a secure network asset, comprising: rece1vmg authentication information from a communication device being operated by a user, the authentication information provided in connection with a request to access the secure network asset, wherein the user has multiple communication profiles, wherein each user communication profile in the multiple communication profiles has a different authentication value associated therewith, and wherein each different authentication value is computed with a common password; comparing the received authentication information with at least one of the authentication values, the at least one authentication value being associated with a first user communication profile in the multiple communication profiles; determining that the authentication information matches the at least one authentication value; and 2 Our Decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Aug. 28, 2013); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 22, 2013); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Apr. 11, 2013); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed June 10, 2009). We note Appellants did not file a Reply Brief in response to the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Examiner's Answer. 2 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 allowing the communication device to access the secure network asset. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the authentication information includes a hash value determined by a combination of the common password and a profile identifier associated with the first user communication profile. 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the hash value is further determined based on a realm of at least one of the communication device and secure network asset. 7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the different authentication values associated with the multiple communication profiles at the secure network asset; and comparing, at the secure network asset, the authentication information with each authentication value associated with the user until a match between the authentication information and the at least one authentication value is found. 8. The method of claim 1, further compnsmg: storing the authentication values associated with the multiple communication profiles in an administrator accessible database; determining that an administrator has changed at least one variable that was used to calculate the authentication values, wherein the at least one variable is not the common password; calculating new authentication values for each communication profile while maintaining the authentication values calculated prior to the administrator changing the at least one variable; thereafter, requesting a second common password from the user; receiving the second common password from the user; 3 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 re-calculating the new authentication values for each communication profile based on the second common password; discarding the authentication values calculated prior to the administrator changing the at least one variable; and storing the new authentication values in the administrator accessible database. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Anderson us 5,751,812 May 12, 1998 Artobello et al. ("Artobello") US 2004/0039740 Al Feb.26,2004 Richardson et al. ("Richardson") US 2006/0072523 Al Apr. 6, 2006 Roskind US 7,228,417 B2 June 5, 2007 Leinonen et al. ("Leinonen") US 2007/0143834 Al June 21, 2007 Mimatsu US 2009/0240717 Al Sept. 24, 2009 (filed Mar. 20, 2008) Rejections on Appeal RI. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Roskind. Ans. 2; Final Act. 2. R2. Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Roskind and Richardson. Ans. 3; Final Act. 6. R3. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Roskind and Leinonen. Ans. 3; Final Act. 7. 4 Appeal2014-004315 Application I2/482,279 R4. Claims 6 and I 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over the combination of Roskind and Anderson. Ans. 3; Final Act. 8. R5. Claims 8, 9, I9, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over the combination of Roskind, Artobello, Mimatsu, and Anderson. Ans. 3; Final Act. 8. CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellants' arguments (Br. 4-I2), we decide the appeal of anticipation Rejection RI of claims I, 5, IO-I4, and I6 on the basis of representative claim I; we decide Rejection RI of separately argued claim 2, infra; and we decide Rejection RI of claims 7 and I8 on the basis of representative claim 7. We decide obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 3 and I5, not separately argued, infra. We decide obviousness Rejection R3 of separately argued claim 3, infra. We decide obviousness Rejection R4 of claims 6 and I 7, not separately argued, infra. We decide Rejection R5 of claims 8, 9, I9, and 20 on the basis of representative claim 8. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS In reaching this Decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments 5 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief so that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1-20, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 for emphases as follows. 1. § 102 Rejection RI of Claims 1, 5, 10-14, and 16 Issue 1 Appellants argue (Br. 5-7) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) being anticipated by Roskind is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses a method that includes, inter alia, the step of "receiving authentication information from a communication device ... operated by a user," and "wherein the user has multiple communication profiles, wherein each user communication profile in the multiple communication profiles has a different authentication value associated therewith," as recited in claim 1? Analysis Appellants contend: Roskind goes through a step-by-step process in which a single hashed user name and password is sent to multiple servers 6 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 to determine if that particular user name and password matches the authentication credentials contained within any of the several different possible servers. The process continues until a server is found in which the single hashed user name and password matches the credentials contained within a particular server. . . . Nowhere does Roskind disclose computing "multiple communication profiles" each with "a different authentication value therewith," as is claimed in Claim 1. Br. 5---6. Appellants additionally argue, "[t]he Office apparently confuses the replication of a single usemame and password on multiple servers with multiple different communication profiles." Br. 6. We note, "[i]n the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations ... limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description."). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 7 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 In response to Appellants' contentions, the Examiner points to Roskind at column 5, lines 58---62 as disclosing "[e]ach authentication server represents a participant of the global authentication federation and has an associated database, e.g. DB 01-DB 03, which caches its registered users' information." Ans. 3--4. From this disclosure, the Examiner finds: Therefore, a user can be registered with multiple authentication servers, each of which stores users' information, or profile. Since there are multiple servers that store user information (Fig. 1, and Col. 5, lines 48-51), there are multiple communication profiles. See also Fig. 3 steps 303, 304, 306, 307, 309 and Col. 7, lines 21-32, where the user information is checked for authentication servers 1-n. Each server contains a user profile for the user so that the server can check the authentication information. Ans. 4 (emphasis added). We note Appellants have not cited to explicit definitions of "communication profile" or "authentication value" in the Specification that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading. 3 Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the disclosure of the cited 3 In the "Summary of Claimed Subject Matter" section of the Brief (Br. 2-3), Appellants incorrectly cite to paragraph 66, lines 8-16 of the Patent Application Publication US 2010/0319059 Al (instead of citing to Spec. 15, 11. 14--19, as required under the Patent Rules) as allegedly providing support for the contested limitations. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iii) ("A concise explanation of the subject matter defined in each of the rejected independent claims, which shall refer to the specification in the Record by page and line number or by paragraph number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters.") (emphasis added). Notwithstanding the incorrect citation, we find no definitions of the contested claim terms at the corresponding sections of the Specification cited by Appellants. 8 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 prior art to disclose the disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 5, 10-14, and 16, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 2. § 102 Rejection RI of Claim 2 Issue 2 Appellants argue (Br. 7) the Examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) being anticipated by Roskind is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses the method of claim 1, "wherein the authentication information includes a hash value determined by a combination of the common password and a profile identifier associated with the first user communication profile," as recited in claim 2? Analysis The Examiner cites Roskind column 6, lines 24--28 as disclosing the contested limitation of claim 2. Final Act. 4. Appellants disagree, and contend: Br. 7. The hash value described in Roskind consists of a single possible password and specific seeds. The hash value claimed in Claim 2, however, comprises the common password, which is computed based on each different authentication value. As discussed above, Roskind teaches the use of a single user name and password and fails to teach authentication based on different authentication values. 9 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 In response, the Examiner finds: As appellant states, in Roskind the hash value used for authentication (authentication information) combines a single password (the common password) and a service specific seed (profile identifier), see Fig. 3. Since the service specific seed is specific to each authentication server, each authentication value computed with the same password will be different. Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Roskind's disclosure cited above discloses "the authentication information includes a hash value determined by a combination of the common password and a profile identifier associated with the first user communication profile," as recited in claim 2. Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the disclosure of the cited prior art to disclose the disputed limitation of claim 2, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of dependent claim 2. 3. § 102 Rejection R 1 of Claims 7 and 18 Issue 3 Appellants argue (Br. 7-8) the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) being anticipated by Roskind is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses the method of claim 1, which further includes the steps of "storing the different authentication values associated with the multiple communication profiles at 10 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 the secure network asset," and "comparing, at the secure network asset, the authentication information with each authentication value," as recited in claim 7? Analysis Appellants contend, " [ c] laim 7 stores and compares different authentication values associated with the multiple communication profiles. Step 403 of Roskind makes clear that Roskind teaches looking up 'an entry based on the user name'; i.e., a single user name and not different authentication values based on multiple communication profiles." Br. 8. In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Roskind's "usemame" is not relied upon as disclosing the recited "authentication value." Ans. 6. "The authentication value is the hash produced using the password and the service specific seed." Id. (citing Roskind Fig. 3, steps 304--306). Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the disclosure of the cited prior art to disclose the disputed limitation of claim 7, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of dependent claim 7, and grouped claim 18, which falls therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 4. § 103 Rejection R3 of Claim 4 Issue 4 Appellants argue (Br. 9) the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination ofRoskind and Leinonen is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: 11 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests the method of claim 2, "wherein the hash value is further determined based on a realm of at least one of the communication device and secure network asset," as recited in claim 4? Analysis Appellants contend Leinonen does not teach or suggest the contested limitation of claim 4. Br. 9. Id. The only mention of 'realm' is a brief line of the table which reads, '{DigestRealm}.'[4J Nothing, however, in paragraph [0086] or its corresponding table states that the realm reference comes from a communication device or a secure network asset or that the 'realm' reference is used to create a hash value. We note, "one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of references." Irz re Keller; 642 F.2d413; 426(CCPA1981). In response to Appellants' specific contentions against the Examiner's reliance upon Leinonen, the Examiner finds: [T]he use of a digest realm as authentication information in a SIP authentication header (detailed in the table below [0086]) in a communication system comprising a session control server and authentication server (Abstract), both of which are communication devices. One of the authentication techniques disclosed in Leinonen is HTTP digest which includes hashing authentication information ([0012]). Thus, the digest of the realm is a hash based on the realm of a communication device. By combining the references, one can include the realm in the 4 We note Appellants have not correctly characterized the disclosure of Leinonen because the citation to "realm" in paragraph 86 is not the "only mention" of "realm," as asserted by Appellants. See Leinonen i-fi-157 and 76. 12 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 hash of the authentication information of Roskind to provide another layer of security for the authentication system. Br. 6. We agree with the Examiner and note, although not relied upon for sustaining the Examiner's rejection in this Decision, in further support of the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness, we find Richardson Figures 5A, 5B, paragraphs 42, 43 (Table 2), 69, and 71 teach or at least suggest the use of a "realm" for the recited purposes of claim 4. 5 Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 4, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 4. 5. § 103 Rejection R5 of Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 Issue 5 Appellants argue (Br. 10-12) the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Roskind, Artobello, Mimatsu, and Anderson is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests all the limitations of claim 8, depending from claim 1, because, purportedly, the combination of references suggested by the Examiner teaches away from the claimed invention of claim 8? 5 Appellants did not file a Reply Brief in response to the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Examiner's Answer. 13 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 Analysis Appellants contend the Examiner has attempted to cobble together the disclosures from three different references in addition to the disclosure found in Roskind in order to generate its obviousness rejection of Claims 8-9 and 19-20. As will be made clear below, this combination would render Roskind inoperable for its intended purpose, and thus teaches away from the Office's proposed combination. Br. 11. Appellants further contend, "Roskind, however, deals with the authentication of a single password among multiple servers. . . . Therefore the disclosure found in Roskind teaches away from the modifications as proposed by the Office because such modifications would render Roskind inoperable for its intended purpose." Br. 12. An argument that the system is rendered "inoperable for its intended purpose" is a "teach[] away" argument. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (The court concluded that in effect, "French teaches away from the board's proposed modification" because "if the French apparatus were turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable for its intended purpose"). The Federal Circuit has held "[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.1994)). Appellants contend the proposed modification would "render Roskind inoperable for its intended purpose." Br. 12. We disagree. 14 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 Appellants have provided no evidence on this record to support the assertion that combining the teachings and suggestions of Roskind, Artobello, Mimatsu, and Anderson teach away from Appellants' invention, apart from mere conclusory statements which are unsupported by factual evidence and entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Rather, only attorney argument was presented regarding why (i) Roskind's password authentication among multiple servers, in combination with (ii) Artobello's teaching of storing authentication values in an administrator-accessible database, (iii) Mimatsu's determination that an administrator has changed a variable used to calculate the authentication values, and (iv) Anderson's teaching of requesting a second common password from the user, teach away from the method of assessing access permissions for a secure network asset, as recited in claim 2. Br. 10-12. See Irz re Pearson; 494 F.2d 1399; 1405 (CCPA 1974); Meitzner v. Mindick; 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977). Further, common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and persons of ordinary skill can often fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Thus, it is not necessary that the references be physically combinable, without change, to render obvious the invention under review. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The criterion instead is what these references would have meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Thus, it is irrelevant that "Roskind 15 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 [purportedly] deals with the authentication of a single password among multiple servers." as urged by Appellants. (Br. 12). Additionally, In KSR, the Supreme Court stated "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. . . . [A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at 417. Moreover, Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner's proffered combination of references would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which our reviewing court guides "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the 16 Appeal2014-004315 Application 12/482,279 disputed limitation of claim 8, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 8, and grouped claims 9, 19, and 20, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 6. Rejections R2 and R4 of Claims 3, 6, 15, and 17 In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed to obviousness Rejections R2 and R4 of claims 3, 6, 15, and 17 under§ 103 (see Br. 8, 9, and 10), we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims. We consider arguments not made to be waived. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err with respect to anticipation Rejection RI of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over the cited prior art of record, and we sustain the rejection. (2) The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections R2 through R5 of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation