Ex Parte Alison et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2016

13425165 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

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.
13/425,165 03/20/2012 Thomas Alison 079894.0405 9734
91230 7590
Baker Botts L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue. 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
12/28/2016 EXAMINER
W OLDEMARIAM, NEGA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2016 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):
ptomaill @bakerbotts.com
ptomail2 @ bakerbotts .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS ALISON, MICHA BERDICHEVSKY,
BOSMAT ELDAR, and SHASHANK PANDIT
Appeal 2016-005078
Application 13/425,165
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.2
1 The Appeal Brief indicates Facebook, Inc. is the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 3.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 20, 2012 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed Mar. 12, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Oct. 9, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Feb. 11,
2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Apr. 11, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-005078
Application 13/425,165
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed authorizing access to social-networking data
involving user authentication after download of a software application.
(Spec. Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method comprising, using one or more processors
associated with a social networking system:
authenticating, using one or more of the processors, a user
of a mobile device as being a particular user of the social­
networking system;
receiving, after authenticating the user of the mobile
device, a first request from the mobile device to install a software
application on the mobile device for accessing social networking
data associated with the user from the social-networking system;
sending, in response to the first request, a first data to the
mobile device comprising the software application and a first
installation identifier (ID);
receiving a second request from the mobile device to
authorize the software application to access the social­
networking data associated with the user from the social­
networking system, the second request comprising a second
installation ID, wherein the second installation ID is based on the
first installation ID;
evaluating, using one or more of the processors, the second
installation ID for validity; and
sending, to the mobile device, a response to the second
request in accordance with the evaluation of the validity of the
second installation ID.
(App. Br. 13 — Claims App’x.)
REJECTION
Claims 1—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Lee
(US 2012/0185912 Al, published July 19, 2012) and Bhatia et al.
(US 2013/0014222 Al, published Jan. 10, 2013). (Final Act. 5-12.)
2
Appeal 2016-005078
Application 13/425,165
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that the cited references fail to disclose the claimed
feature of “receiving, after authenticating the user of the mobile device, a
first request from the mobile device to install a software application on the
mobile device.” (App. Br. 5—8.) The Examiner finds that Lee teaches that a
content server 320 receives a request from a mobile device 300 to download
an application, concluding that this disclosure teaches the claimed feature.
(Final Act. 3 and Ans. 2 citing Lee Tflf 54, 65, Fig. 4 — steps 331 and 431.)
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants’ argument. Lee actually suggests the
opposite of what is claimed, namely, receiving a request to download a
software application before, not after, user authentication. Authentication is
generally understood to refer to verification of the identity of a user. See,
e.g., authentication definition, Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th Ed.
2002). In Lee, a user identifier is transmitted from the mobile station to the
operator in an application authorization request occurring after the mobile
station downloads the application. This can be seen in Lee Figures 3 and 4
in which the request to download at step 331 or 431 (1 54) and the
responsive download of the application at 333 or 433 (1 55) occur before
mobile station requests application authorization with user identifier in step
337 or 437 (1 58). For ease of reference, Lee Figure 4 is shown below.
3
Appeal 2016-005078
Application 13/425,165
FIG. 4
Figure 4 of Lee shows mobile station “request to download application”
(step 431) and “download application” (step 433) occurring before
transmitting the “application authorization request” (step 437) including a
user identifier to the operator.
The Examiner’s finding that Lee implicitly teaches authenticating or
identifying the user of the mobile device before authorization of the software
application (Ans. 10) is unsupported by the teachings of Lee. Furthermore,
the Examiner’s finding does not correspond to the actual claim language
reciting that receiving the request to install the software application is
performed after user authentication. The Examiner’s reliance on Bhatia’s
4
Appeal 2016-005078
Application 13/425,165
teaching of an authentication token (id.) does not overcome the noted
deficiency of Lee.
As Lee suggests user authentication after the request to download a
software application, which is the opposite of what is claimed, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1,18, and 19, or their dependent claims 2—17.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5