10723416 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2013)

Ex Parte Bagga et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 18, 2013

10723416 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AMIT BAGGA, JON BENTLEY, and LAWRENCE O'GORMAN 1 ____________________ Appeal 2010-009702 Application 10/723,416 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and LARRY J. HUME, 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 second, non-final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 16-25. Appellants have previously canceled claims 3 and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Real Party in Interest is Avaya, Inc. (App. Br. 4.) Appeal 2010-009702 Application 10/723,416 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2 The Invention Appellants’ invention relates generally to user authentication techniques and more particularly, to methods and apparatus for generating user passwords. Spec. p. 1, ll. 5-6 (“Field of the Invention”). Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention which is reproduced below (emphasis added): 1. A method for generating a password for a user during an enrollment phase, comprising: presenting said user with a plurality of topics; receiving a user selection of at least one topic; receiving one or more personal details from said user associated with said at least one selected topic as a proposed password; performing an Internet search using a query containing one or more keywords derived from said personal details of said proposed password, wherein said Internet search searches contents of the Internet across a plurality of web sites using a search engine tool; 2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Substitute Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Mar. 12, 2010); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 16, 2009); Misc. Comm. to Appl. (“Rev. Grnds of Rej.,” mailed June 10, 2010); Non- Final Office Action (“NFOA,” mailed Nov. 28, 2008); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Nov. 26, 2003). Appeal 2010-009702 Application 10/723,416 3 evaluating results of said search relative to one or more predefined thresholds applicable to said at least one selected topic; rejecting said proposed password when said user is correlated with said proposed password if one or more of said predefined thresholds are exceeded by said results; and recording said one or more personal details as a password for said user if said proposed password is not rejected. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Kanevsky US 5,774,525 Jun. 30, 1998 Mikheev US 2002/0055919 A1 May 9, 2002 Lee US 2004/0044657 A1 Mar. 4, 2004 Ogura US 2004/0078603 A1 Apr. 22, 2004 Fallman US 2004/0107406 A1 Jun. 3, 2004 Eitel US 7,043,521 B2 May 9, 2006 Nelson US 7,062,655 B2 Jun. 13, 2006 Honarvar US 7,231,657 B2 Jun. 12, 2007 “P-Synch Installation and Configuration Guide”, May 2002 (hereafter “P- Synch”). Appeal 2010-009702 Application 10/723,416 4 Rejections on Appeal 3 1. Claims 1, 8, 13, 20, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nelson, Ogura, and Fallman in view of Eitel. Rev. Grnds of Rej. 1. 2. Claims 2, 7, 11, 14, 19, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nelson, Ogura, Fallman, and Eitel in view of Honarvar. Rev. Grnds of Rej. 2. 3. Claims 4-6 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nelson, Ogura, Fallman, and Eitel in view of P- Synch. Rev. Grnds of Rej. 2. 4. Claims 9, 10, 12, 21, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nelson, Ogura, Fallman, and Eitel in view of Kanevsky. Rev. Grnds of Rej. 3. ISSUE Appellants argue (App. Br. 18-22) that the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nelson, Ogura, and Fallman in view of Eitel is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Nelson, Ogura, Fallman and Eitel renders Appellants’ claimed method 3 We note that the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 16-25 has been withdrawn in response to the filing of an acceptable Terminal Disclaimer. See Rev. Grnds of Rej. 1 (“WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS”) and 3 (“Response to Argument”). Appeal 2010-009702 Application 10/723,416 5 obvious for generating a password for a user during an enrollment phase, as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to claim 1, and we disagree with (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 by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows. We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Nelson, Ogura, Fallman, and Eitel teaches or suggests Appellants’ claimed method for generating a password for a user during an enrollment phase which includes, inter alia, “receiving one or more personal details from said user associated with said at least one selected topic as a proposed password; performing an Internet search using a query containing one or more keywords derived from said personal details of said proposed password . . . rejecting said proposed password when said user is correlated with said proposed password if one or more of said predefined thresholds are exceeded by said results . . . ,” as recited in claim 1. In simple terms, Appellants’ claimed invention receives personal details selected by a user for use as a proposed password. Then, an Internet search is performed over a plurality of websites on one or more keywords derived from the user’s personal details and, if the Internet search results Appeal 2010-009702 Application 10/723,416 6 indicate that the user is correlated with the proposed password within some predefined threshold, then the proposed password is rejected. On the other hand, if the search results indicate that the proposed password is not correlated with the user within the predefined threshold, then the proposed password is not rejected. Claim 1. Appellants contend that “the prior art cited by the Office fails to teach an arrangement in which an Internet search is performed to correlate a user with a proposed password.” App. Br. 20 (emphasis in original). We agree with Appellants, and disagree with the Examiner’s findings regarding the combined teachings of the cited art. Ans. 12-15. The Examiner has found various references that teach specific portions of the invention recited in claim 1 (See Rev. Grnds of Rej. 1-2; Ans. 12-15), but has assembled the cited references in a piecemeal fashion that we find does not teach or suggest the underlying invention, i.e., selecting a password that is not correlated to the user (within some threshold) as determined from an Internet search of keywords associated with personal details selected by the user. Accordingly, we find that Appellants have provided arguments sufficient to convince us of error in the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons argued by Appellants with respect to claim 1, we reverse the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of independent claims 13 and 25, which recite the disputed limitations in commensurate form. For the same reasons, we also reverse the rejections of all claims that depend therefrom. Appeal 2010-009702 Application 10/723,416 7 CONCLUSIONS The Examiner erred with respect to the unpatentability rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 16-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Nelson, Ogura, and Fallman in view of Eitel and the other variously cited references of record, and we do not sustain the rejections. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 16-25 is reversed. ELD