Ex Parte Angelo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 13, 2011

10260892 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 13, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte MICHAEL F. ANGELO, MANUEL NOVOA,
and JOHN A. CARCHIDE
_____________

Appeal 2009-007684
Application 10/260,892
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and MARC S.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007684
Application 10/260,892

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 14, 20 through 24, and 32 through 43.
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of setting up a user account on a
computer by using a token such as a smart card. See page 2 of Appellants’
Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
1. A method of managing a user account on a computer, comprising:
(a) inserting a token into the computer, said token comprising user
account information and security data which permits the user account
information to be verified;
(b) verifying a user of said token;
(c) verifying said security data on said token;
(d) creating said user account if said security data is successfully
verified; and
(e) after logging off of said user account, accessing said user account
without inserting said token into the computer.

REFERENCES
Bertram US 5,948,064 Sep. 7, 1999
Epstein US 6,453,416 B1 Sep. 17, 2002

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 14, 20 through 24, and 32
through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bertram in
view of Epstein. Answer 3 through 5.
2

Appeal 2009-007684
Application 10/260,892

ISSUE
Appellants’ contentions, on pages 11 and 12 of the Brief, with respect
to the rejection of claims 1 through 14, 20 through 24, and 32 through 43
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of the references teach the claimed step of after
logging off, accessing the user account without inserting the token into the
computer?

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 14, 20 through 24, and 32 through
43. Representative claim 1 recites a step of managing a user account where
a token is used to create a user account on a computer and after logging off
accessing the user account without accessing the token. Appellants argue
that Bertram teaches that the user account is kept on the local machine but
does not teach access without the token. Brief 11. In response, the
Examiner finds that Bertram’s teaching of maintaining dynamically created
accounts for future local logins meets this limitation as the local login does
not require access to the remote authorization location (which the Examiner
equates to the claimed token). Answer 7. We concur with the Examiner as
it is supported by evidence of record; see Bertram, column 11, lines 51-52
and column 12, lines 26-29. Appellants have not identified an error in the
Examiner’s finding that a local login involves accessing the account without
accessing the token.
Appellants further argument, on pages 11 and 12 of the Brief, that
Epstein does not teach access without using the token, and that combining
3

Appeal 2009-007684
Application 10/260,892

Epstein with Bertram would not result in accessing the account without the
token, is not persuasive of error. As discussed above, the Examiner finds
that Bertram teaches this feature, Answer 8. Additionally, as stated by the
Examiner on pages 9 through 11 of the Answer, Appellants’ arguments are
based upon conjecture and not the findings made by the Examiner to reject
the claims.
Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of the references teaches the claimed step of
after logging off, accessing the user account without inserting the token into
the computer. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 14, 20 through 24, and 32 through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision
to reject claims 1 through 14, 20 through 24, and 32 through 43. Thus, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 14, 20 through 24
and 32 through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 14, 20
through 24 and 32 through 43 is affirmed.
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).
4

Appeal 2009-007684
Application 10/260,892

AFFIRMED

ELD

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
MAIL STOP 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528
5