Ex Parte de los Rios et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 201813968724 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2018) 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. 13/968,724 08/16/2013 Juan de los Rios ORA180116 (NS-58) 1250 51444 7590 02/14/2018 COOPER LEGAL GROUP / ORACLE 4700 Rockside Road Summit One, Suite 510 Independence, OH 44131 EXAMINER SCHMIDT, KARIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2439 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/14/2018 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): MUthoff@CooperLegalGroup.com DD ay @ CooperLegalGroup .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUAN DE LOS RIOS, JOHN CHERNIAVSKY, and DOUGLAS H. WILLIAMS Appeal 2017-009828 Application 13/968,7241 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Netsuite, Inc. App. Br. 4. Appeal 2017-009828 Application 13/968,724 INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a “Secure Credential Service for Cloud Platform Applications.” Title. Claim 1 reads as follows, with the disputed limitations shown in italics: 1. A method for authenticating a user of a computing platform with an external service, comprising: generating a user interface configured to permit a user to enter data corresponding to a credential; receiving the data corresponding to the credential at the computing platform; storing the data corresponding to the credential in a data store at the computing platform; generating a credential token, the credential token identifying the stored data; providing the previously-generated credential token to an application executing on the computing platform; receiving data from the application, the received data including the previously generated credential token and data identifying the external service that is external to the computing platform; using the previously-generated credential token to access the data corresponding to the credential while preventing the application from accessing the credential; and providing the data corresponding to the credential to the external service without providing the data corresponding to the credential to the application. REJECTIONS Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Nelson et al. (US 8,793,509 Bl; issued July 29, 2014) (“Nelson”) and Madsen et al. (US 8,473,749 Bl; issued June 25, 2013) (“Madsen”). Final Act. 7. 2 Appeal 2017-009828 Application 13/968,724 Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Nelson, Madsen, and Beck et al. (US 2004/0088349 Al; published May 6, 2004) (“Beck”). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 7-13) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-7). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner found Nelson teaches or suggests all of the recited limitations, except the negative limitation “without providing the data corresponding to the credential to the application,” for which the Examiner relied on Madsen. Final Act. 7-9.2 The Examiner combined Madsen’s teaching of granting an application access to information associated with a user without sharing that user’s account credentials with Nelson’s method for authenticating a user of a computing platform with an external service. Final Act. 9, citing Madsen, col. 1,11. 25- 36. The Examiner specifically cited Madsen as teaching an open standard protocol for authorization. Ans. 7. 2 We note the negative limitation “without providing the data corresponding to the credential to the application” was added by amendment during prosecution. Cf. original claims, 1 and 11 filed Aug. 16, 2013. 3 Appeal 2017-009828 Application 13/968,724 Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Nelson allegedly fails to teach the limitation “storing the data corresponding to the credential in a data store at the computing platform,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 7. Appellants argue Nelson does not teach storing the actual credential data at the computer platform. In particular, Appellants argue Nelson teaches a token database that is used for storing tokens, not credential data. Id. Appellants’ further contend Nelson’s “authorization agent” receives the credential data, not Nelson’s “relying party platform.” Id. Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding Nelson teaches that the stored credential data is used to generate a credential token identifying the stored data, as claim 1 requires. App. Br. 15. Specifically, Appellants argue the generated token in Nelson “corresponds to ‘approved scope’ which generally describes access to various applications” and “is not the same as credential data as recited in this claim.” Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because the Examiner relied on Nelson’s teaching of a cookie to teach or suggest the recited “data store” that contains the recited “credential.” Ans. 3 (citing Nelson col. 5:16-33). The Examiner further found Nelson teaches the agent identifies a user by the stored cookie, displays scopes for approval, and generates the authorization token. Ans. 3 (citing Nelson col. 5:27-38; Fig. 5). In other words, the Examiner found Nelson’s scopes are forms of data corresponding to a credential (cookie), and are associated with the generation of a “credential token” based on approved data. Ans. 3—4. Appellants do not address in their Reply Brief the Examiner’s additional clarifications and findings set forth in the Answer, or persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings. See Reply Br. 17-18. Rather, Appellants 4 Appeal 2017-009828 Application 13/968,724 reargue that the term “approved scope” used in Nelson is not the same as the term “credential data” recited in claim 1. Id. at 18. Appellants, however, provide no persuasive explanation or objective evidence as to why the Examiner erred in interpreting the claim term “credential data” as broad enough to encompass Nelson’s “approved scope.” See id. For example, Appellants have not persuasively shown the Examiner’s interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification.3 It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). Regarding the disputed “receiving” limitation, Appellants argue “the external service does not actually receive any credential data in direct contrast with the recitations of this claim.” App. Br. 15. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because Appellants argue limitations not recited in claim 1. The plain language of claim 1 does not recite “the external service receives credential data” as argued by Appellants. Instead, it recites “receiving data from the application, the received data including 3 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard, we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 5 Appeal 2017-009828 Application 13/968,724 the previously generated credential token and data identifying the external service that is external to the computing platform.” App. Br. 27 (Claim App’x). Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim because, in the disputed limitation, the external service is not explicitly recited as receiving data, and Appellants have not persuaded us the claim requires it to. Appellants next argue Nelson does not teach or suggest the limitation “using the previously-generated credential token to access the data corresponding to the credential while preventing the application from accessing the credential” because Nelson does not provide any credential information (data or token) to the external service in order to access services from the external service. App. Br. 16. The disputed limitation includes a negative limitation—“while preventing the application from accessing the credential”—added by amendment during prosecution.4 Appellants’ 4 We do not find clear support in the cited portion of Appellants’ Specification (App. Br. 6, citing Spec. ^ 49,11. 3-16) for the negative limitation, which was added by amendment during prosecution. In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider whether a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection for lack of written description is appropriate. See Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharms., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Negative claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Such written description support need not rise to the level of disclaimer. In fact, it is possible for the patentee to support both the inclusion and exclusion of the same material.”). Although “many original claims will satisfy the written description requirement. . . .” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. EliLilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (enbanc) (see Appellants original claim 11), 37 C.F.R. §1.75(d) (1) requires: [t]he claim or claims must conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in 6 Appeal 2017-009828 Application 13/968,724 arguments are unpersuasive because, to the extent the negative limitation may be given patentable weight by our reviewing court, Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner’s specific findings regarding the contested negative limitation. The Examiner cites evidentiary support showing Nelson combined with Madsen does, in fact, teach preventing the application from accessing the credential. Ans. 5-7. Appellants also contend Nelson teaches away from the claim limitation “providing the data corresponding to the credential to the external service without providing the data corresponding to the credential to the application. ” App. Br. 16. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ “teaching away” argument because Appellants have not identified where Nelson actually criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages “providing the data corresponding to the credential to the application.” See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed”) (citing Fulton). Moreover, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Nelson and Madsen teaches the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description. (emphasis added). See also MPEP § 2163(I)(A)(“Original Claims”) (Rev. 08.2017, January 2018). While the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. 7 Appeal 2017-009828 Application 13/968,724 this negative limitation. Reply. Br. 9. Specifically, the Examiner found Madsen’s open Authorization allowing a user to grant a third-party application access without sharing the user’s password teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 7. The Examiner provided “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Final Act. 9. For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Nelson and Madsen teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 11, which Appellants argue is patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 18-25. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, for which Appellants make no additional arguments. App. Br. 17-18 and 25; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. §41.50(f). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation