Ex Parte D et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 14, 2010

10856018 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 14, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANTHONY D’AGOSTINO, DAVID A. MEYER,
GEORGE DELLARATTA, and VINCENT ARCELO
____________

Appeal 2009-006897
Application 10/856,018
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: June 14, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4-9, 11-13, 15-26, and 28-30. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention pertains to managing credential information to
connect to a network. Specifically, a user’s credentials are stored in a device
Appeal 2009-006897
Application 10/856,018

2
in accordance with a defined retaining period such that the credentials are
purged from storage when the defined retaining period expires. See
generally Abstract; Spec. 2-4. Claim 1 is illustrative with a key disputed
limitation emphasized:
1. A portable device that facilitates management of a user credential
to connect to a network, the portable device comprising:

an input component that defines a selected input method to input the
user credential into the portable device; and

a retention component that includes a retention option, the retention
option defines a period for retaining the user credential within a data store;
and

a purging component that erases the user credential from the data
store upon expiration of the defined retaining period.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Sun US 2004/0078597A1 Apr. 22, 2004
Mozilla.org, Privacy & Security Preferences – Web Passwords, 2001,
available at www.mozilla.org (“Mozilla”).

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-9, 11-13, 15-26, and 28-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sun and Mozilla. Ans. 3-5.1

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 9,
2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 21, 2008; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed October 21, 2008.
Appeal 2009-006897
Application 10/856,018

3
CLAIM GROUPING
Appellants argue all appealed claims together as a group. See App.
Br. 4-5. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Sun
discloses all of the recited subject matter except for (1) a retention
component that defines a period for retaining an inputted user credential
within a data store, and (2) a purging component that erases the user
credential from the data store upon expiration of the defined retaining
period. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner, however, cites Mozilla for inherently
purging a “credential” comprising a master password and its authorization
from a data store upon expiration of a predetermined time period in
concluding the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 4-5, 16-19.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on Mozilla is misplaced
since Mozilla’s password manager stores credentials on the user’s hard disk,
and merely requests the master password after a predetermined time period
to identify the user and allow access. App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 2-4.
Appellants emphasize that this periodic request for the master password does
not involve erasing the user credential from the data store upon expiration of
a defined retaining period as claimed. Id.

Appeal 2009-006897
Application 10/856,018

4
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Sun and Mozilla collectively would have taught or suggested a purging
component that erases a user credential from a data store upon expiration of
defined retaining period?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. The Examiner’s findings regarding Sun’s disclosure (Ans. 3-4) are
undisputed. Ans. 16.
2. Mozilla’s “Password Manager” (1) stores user names and
passwords on the user’s computer hard disk, and (2) enters the passwords
automatically when the user visits sites requiring those passwords. Mozilla,
at 1.2
3. Mozilla’s system enables the user to set or change a master
password which protects a “security device” (i.e., a software or hardware
device that stores sensitive information associated with the user’s identity,
such as keys or certificates). Mozilla, at 3.
4. Mozilla’s system also enables the user to control how often the
browser (via the Certificate Manager) requests the user’s master password
by selecting one of three options. Specifically, the user can specify that the
browser request the master password: (1) only the first time it is needed to

2 Although the Mozilla reference is not individually paginated, we
nevertheless refer to reference’s pages in the order that they appear in the
record.
Appeal 2009-006897
Application 10/856,018

5
access the private key database; (2) every time it is needed to access the
private key database; or (3) if it has not been used for at least a
predetermined time period (e.g., 20 minutes). Mozilla, at 4-5 (“Master
Password Timeout” section).
5. Mozilla’s system enables the user to reset the master password,
resulting in permanently erasing all web and email passwords and saved
form data. Mozilla, at 6.

ANALYSIS
We note at the outset that the Examiner’s reliance on Sun’s disclosure
is undisputed. FF 1. Accordingly, we confine our analysis to Mozilla—
specifically whether Mozilla’s “master password timeout” feature erases a
user credential from a data store upon expiration of a defined retaining
period?
To answer this question, we first highlight a key discrepancy between
the Examiner’s and Appellants’ interpretations of the term “user credential”
in claim 1. The Examiner construes the term “user credential” to include not
only the user’s master password in Mozilla, but also its “authorization”
(Ans. 4, 18-19). Appellants, however, limit their interpretation of a “user
credential” to only the master password. See Reply Br. 3.3

3 Compare Ans. 18 (“The master password and its authorization are the user
credential.”) with Reply Br. 3 (“Nowhere does Mozilla disclose a purging
component that erases the user credential (master password) from the data
store (file on the hard disk) upon expiration of the defined retaining period.”)
(emphases added).
Appeal 2009-006897
Application 10/856,018

6
Another key term in the claim is the “data store”: a term that
Appellants seemingly equate to solely the user’s hard disk in Mozilla. See
Reply Br. 3-4.
Based on the record before us, however, we see no reason why the
“data store” in Mozilla should be so limited. Although Mozilla stores the
master password on the user’s hard disk (FF 2)—a password that would
remain stored on this disk until it is reset (see FF 5)—ordinarily skilled
artisans nevertheless would have recognized that the authorization process
itself would involve at least temporarily storing the inputted master
password responsive to requests from the user’s browser (e.g., at periodic
intervals) for verification. See FF 4.
This temporary storage reasonably comports with the Examiner’s
interpretation of “user credential,” for the Examiner did not limit the
interpretation of this term solely to the master password on the user’s hard
disk as Appellants seem to suggest (Reply Br. 3-4), but also to its
authorization as noted above (Ans. 4, 18-19). And skilled artisans would
have recognized that this authorization would involve temporarily storing at
least the inputted master password responsive to the browser’s request for
verification (e.g., by comparing the inputted version of the master password
with the version stored on the user’s hard disk to determine if they match).
See FF 4.
And since this authorization can be performed automatically after a
predetermined time period elapses (e.g., at least every 20 minutes) (FF 4),
the subsequently-entered “user credentials” (e.g., the re-entered master
passwords from the user responsive to these periodic requests) would
supersede or overwrite the previously-entered master passwords (i.e.,
Appeal 2009-006897
Application 10/856,018

7
entered responsive to previous requests for such passwords). As a result, the
previously-entered master passwords would be erased from the “data store”
upon expiration of the “defined retaining period” (i.e., the predetermined
time interval that requests entry of the master password) and the re-entry of
the requested password. See id.
We reach this conclusion noting that nothing in claim 1 precludes the
manual entry of a master password responsive to requests, and the resultant
temporary storage of this entered password for verification as noted above,
particularly since the preamble of claim 1 includes the open-ended term
“comprising” which does not preclude additional unrecited elements.4 That
Appellants’ claims 4, 9, 13, 18, and 26 call for caching data, and claim 5
recites a volatile memory only bolsters our conclusion that the data store
need not be a permanent memory, but rather can be temporary—a feature
amply suggested by Mozilla as noted above.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 4-9, 11-13, 15-26, and 28-30 which fall
with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4-9, 11-13, 15-26, and
28-30 under § 103.

4 “‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the
named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still
form a construct within the scope of the claim.” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron
Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).

Appeal 2009-006897
Application 10/856,018

8
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-9, 11-13, 15-26, and
28-30 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).

AFFIRMED

pgc

MOTOROLA, INC.
1303 EAST ALGONQUIN ROAD
IL01/3RD
SCHAUMBURG, IL 60196