Ex Parte Ali et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

13755256 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
131755,256
96061 7590
Winstead PC (Dell)
PO Box 131851
FILING DATE
0113112013
09/27/2016
Dallas, TX 75313-1851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Raziuddin Ali
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.
43738-P061US 2115
EXAMINER
DESROSIERS, EV ANS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
delldocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAZIUDDIN ALI, CLAUDE LANO COX,
YUAN-CHANG LO, ABU SHARER SANAULLAH,
and KARTHIKEYAN KRISHNAKUMAR
Appeal 2015-006869
Application 13/755,256
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-006869
Application 13/755,256
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The invention "relates generally to information security and more
particularly, but not by way of limitation, to systems and methods for
adaptive multifactor authentication." (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
on an access-point (AP) device, receiving a request for wire-
less connection from a supplicant device via a service path, the
service path comprising a peer-to-peer communication path;
based on an indication received from the supplicant device,
adapting, by the AP device, an authentication method to the sup-
plicant device;
wherein the adapting comprises selecting at least one authen-
tication factor from a plurality of supported authentication fac-
tors;
wherein each of the plurality of supported authentication fac-
tors comprises an authentication path that is distinct from the ser-
vice path; and
on the AP device, authenticating the supplicant device via
each of the at least one authentication factor.
1 Appellants identify Dell Products L.P. as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal2015-006869
Application 13/755,256
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 9, 11-13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2009/0300744 Al; Dec. 3,
2009). (See Final Act. 3-5.)
2. Claims 4--8, 10, and 14--19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Guo and Adams (US 2011/0271331 Al;
Nov. 3, 2011). (See Final Act. 5-9.)
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the rejections are in error because Guo does not
disclose a request for a wireless connection, where independent claims 1 and
20 recite "receiving a request for wireless connection" and independent
claim 11 recites "a processing unit ... operable to: receive a request for
wireless connection." (See App. Br. 7; Reply 2.)
We agree. Cited paragraph 34 of Guo (see Final Act. 3; Ans. 6-7)
reads as follows:
In the illustrated flow, the user requests access to the secure
server in a request operation 302 (e.g., by navigating a browser
to a web page served by the secure server). The secure server
device detects that the user has not yet been authenticated for
access by the account authority service (e.g., the user's access
request did not contain a security token for access to the secure
server) and therefore redirects the user to the account authority
service for authentication in a redirection operation 304.
Missing from this passage, and from Figures 1 and 3 also cited by the
Examiner, is any mention of a request for a wireless connection. The
3
Appeal2015-006869
Application 13/755,256
reference does not describe the "secure server" as a wireless device, 2 and the
record does not establish that it is inherently wireless. 3 Moreover, even if
the user device and the secure server were connected wirelessly, the record
would still fail to identify a request for a wireless connection, as claimed,
because Guo's request is only for "access to the secure server." (Guo i-f 34.)
For these reasons, Guo cannot anticipate these claims 4 and we
therefore decline to sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejections of claims 1-3,
9, 11-13, and 20. For the same reason, we decline to sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 4--8, 10, and 14--19. Because this issue is
dispositive, we do not reach Appellants' other arguments.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-20 are reversed.
REVERSED
2 Although the Examiner identifies "secure server 304" (Ans. 7), item 304 is
actually "a redirection operation." (Guo i-f 34.)
3 "Inherency ... may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
not sufficient." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
4 See Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2006) ("A determination that a patent is invalid as being anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a finding that 'each and every limitation is found
either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference."' (quoting
Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'! Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).
4