Ex Parte CrumeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 201712426365 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/426,365 04/20/2009 Jeffery L. Crume CHA920080032US1 4677 45095 7590 03/10/2017 HOFFMAN WARNTOK T T C EXAMINER 540 Broadway 4th Floor PATEL, ASHOKKUMAR B ALBANY, NY 12207 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2017 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): PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFERY L. CRUME Appeal 2014-003350 Application 12/426,365 Technology Center 2400 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-003350 Application 12/426,365 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 20. Claims 2, 4—6, 9, 11—13, 16, 18, and 19 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). THE INVENTION The claims are directed to migrating a user across authentication systems. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1 A system for migrating a user from an existing authentication system to a new authentication system, comprising: a login system that collects information from the user during a login process; a migration list check system that compares the information to a migration list to determine if the user is selected for migration, the migration list identifying a set of users selected to be migrated, a status of the migration of each user in the set of users, a user type for each user in the set of users, the user type indicating which users are to be migrated, and a date for migration of each selected user; and a migration logic system that migrates the user from the existing authentication system to the new authentication system during the login process if the user is selected in the migration list and a current date is after the migration date of the selected user; wherein the migration system migrates the user from the existing authentication system to the new authentication system a first time the user logs in after being selected and after the migration date, wherein a password is captured during the login process and automatically stored in the new authentication 2 Appeal 2014-003350 Application 12/426,365 system when the user is migrated, and wherein an expiration date of the password on the existing authentication system is migrated from the existing authentication system to the new authentication system. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Peterson et al. US 2007/0083917 A1 Apr. 12, 2007 Vanyukhin et al. US 8,086,710 B2 Dec. 27, 2011 REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Peterson and Vanyukhin. Final Act. 3—15. APPELLANT’S CONTENTION Appellant contends Peterson neither teaches a password expiration date nor migration of authentication data including a password expiration date as required by the independent claims. App. Br. 7—12, Reply Br. 2—\. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peterson and Vanyukhin. We agree with Appellant’s conclusions as to this rejection of the claims. 3 Appeal 2014-003350 Application 12/426,365 Appellant argues “Peterson does not disclose that either [of the disclosed default or changed] passwords has an ‘expiration date’ or that such a non-existent ‘expiration date’ is migrated from the established server 150 to the target server 160.” App. Br. 10. The Examiner responds by finding “[i]t would be obvious to one ordinarily [skill] in the art that the migrated authentication data depicted within Peterson would include the expiration dates of passwords as the expiration of a password is part of the authentication process.” Ans. 16. We agree with Appellant. “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not. . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies” in the cited references. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967); see In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (same). The Examiner provides insufficient evidence for the finding that Peterson would include a password expiration as part of the authentication process. As argued by Appellant, the reference makes no mention of a password expiration date much less migrating a password expiration date to a new authentication system. Therefore we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 which include the disputed limitation nor the rejection of dependent claims 3, 7, 10, 14, and 17 which stand with their respective base claim. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION We enter a new ground of rejection pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). We reject independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 under 4 Appeal 2014-003350 Application 12/426,365 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peterson, Vanyukhin, and Fowler et al., US 2003/0233541 A1 filed June 14, 2002 (“Fowler”). The combination of Peterson and Vanyukhin teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Rejection at pages 3—7 except for the disputed limitation requiring migration of a password expiration date (see discussion supra). In particular, Peterson and Vanyukhin teach migrating authentication data from one authentication system to a new authentication system (Final Act. 6 (citing Peterson || 32, 35 and Vanyukhin col. 7,11. 24—56); see also App. Br. 121), the authentication data including a password (Peterson 130, Vanyukhin col. 7,11. 24—56; see also App. Br. 102), but fail to explicitly describe migration of a password expiration date. Fowler in an analogous art describes a network of servers wherein “[ujsers may migrate their account between servers without [losing] accumulated permissions.” Fowler, Abstract. Fowler further discloses “all permission grants have an expiration date and must be renewed to continue in effect, and a request for a copy of a renewed permission may be made to the servers hosting either the user account that issued the permission, or the user account that received the permission” (Fowler, claim 10) thereby teaching or suggesting the migration (e.g., between Vanyukhin’s servers) of authentication data to include an expiration date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Peterson and 1 “[0]ne skilled in the art would not interpret Vanyukhin’s migration of authentication data as including such an expiration date” (emphasis added). 2 “[T]he default password and/or user entered password disclosed by Peterson do not have an expiration date . . . . ” 5 Appeal 2014-003350 Application 12/426,365 Vanyukhin’s migration of authentication data including a password to further include an expiration date of the password as taught by Fowler to provide security against user authentication based on an expired password. Accordingly, the combination of Peterson, Vanyukhin, and Fowler teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of “wherein an expiration date of the password on the existing authentication system is migrated from the existing authentication system to the new authentication system,” as required by independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 20. We note the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is a review body, rather than a place of initial examination. We have rejected independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 based on our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). We have not, however, reviewed the remaining claims to the extent necessary to determine whether those claims are likewise unpatentable. We leave it to the Examiner to ascertain whether claims dependent from claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 should be rejected on similar grounds to those set forth herein or in combination with additional prior art. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1,3,7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 20 is reversed. We newly reject independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Peterson, Vanyukhin and Fowler. This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection 6 Appeal 2014-003350 Application 12/426,365 pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides: When the Board enters such a non-final decision, Appellant, within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground[s] of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground[s] of rejection [are] binding upon the Examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground[s] of rejection designated in this decision. Should the examiner reject the claims, Appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart. (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought. 7 Appeal 2014-003350 Application 12/426,365 Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). REVERSED 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b) 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation