Ex Parte Fadida et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

15040137 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/040,137 02/10/2016 Itzhak Fadida
141563 7590 07/27/2018
MHKKG (CA Technologies)
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
IL20140303US2/7100-07300 6609
EXAMINER
STOICA, ADRIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ITZHAK FAD IDA, GUY BALZAM,
AMIR JERBI, and NIR BARAK
Appeal2018-002556 1
Application 15/040, 13 7
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and JOHN D.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21. Claims 10 and 20 have been
indicated to contain allowable subject matter. Final Act. 5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify CA, Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2018/002556
Application 15/040,137
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1 and 9 under appeal read as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for sanitizing
passwords, comprising:
providing, by a computer, a password of a shared
account to a user;
identifying, by the computer, a first machine
logged into using the password;
determining, by the computer, when the first
machine enters an inconsistent state;
in response to determining the first machine enters
the inconsistent state, identifying, in a first memory area
associated with the first machine, one or more
occurrences of the password; and
modifying, by the computer, the first memory area
associated with the first machine by replacing each
occurrence of the password with a first predetermined
marker in order to eliminate occurrences of the password
in the first memory area.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the inconsistent state
is a suspended-activity state, comprises:
determining that a predetermined time period has
elapsed since the first memory area associated with the
first machine was modified by replacing each occurrence
of the password with the first predetermined recognizable
marker.
2
Appeal 2018/002556
Application 15/040,137
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
He
W ookey et al.
Oshima
Gudipati
us 5,944,824
us 2007 /0171921
US 2009/0034731 Al
US 2015/0007350 Al
Aug.31, 1999
July 26, 2007
Feb. 5,2009
Jan. 1, 2015
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject mater.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of obvious
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US
Patent No. US 9,367,673 B2. 2
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Gudipati in view of He and further in view
of Oshima. 3
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gudipati in view of He, in view of Oshima, and further in
view of W ookey.
ANALYSIS
THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION
The Examiner concludes that claims 9 and 19 are indefinite because:
Reading claim 1 and claim 9 together, we have a situation in
which claim 1 must replace the password with the marker
2 We proforma affirm the double patenting rejection, which was not
contested by Appellants.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 9 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2018/002556
Application 15/040,137
because some one previously replaced the password with the
marker. However, in such a case, the password would no longer
be present in memory to need such redundant replacement.
To the extent that applicant contemplates the possibility that the
password might need replacing again, there is essential structure
missing from the claim that would explain the connection
between these steps.
Ans. 5.
Appellants contend:
When the language of claims 1 and 9 are construed in light of the
present specification, Appellant submits that one of ordinary skill
would recognize that the inconsistent state recited in claim 9 is
determined by determining when a predetermined time period
has elapsed since the first memory area of the associated machine
was previously modified. Thus, Appellant urges that the
language of claim 9 reasonably apprises one of ordinary skill in
the art of its scope and, therefore distinctly defines the invention.
Reply Br. 3--4.
Appellants' Specification discloses:
[0029] As an alternative, the sanitation logic of the PUPM server
may periodically sanitize the memory of Machine A or Machine
B regardless of whether or not that machine has entered a
dormant state. For example, every 15 minutes, the sanitation
logic may simply as a precaution identify password information
stored in memory of either Machine A or Machine B and remove
it. Thus, the modification of the memory areas can occur before
a machine enters an inconsistent state, or once a machine
indicates it is about to enter an inconsistent state, or once the
machine is determined to have already entered an inconsistent
state.
In view of the Specification, we agree with Appellants that "claim 9
recites that this determination involves determining that a predetermined
time period has elapsed since the first memory area associated with the first
4
Appeal 2018/002556
Application 15/040,137
machine was modified (i.e., 'modified by replacing each occurrence of the
password with the first predetermined recognizable marker')." Reply Br. 3.
We will not sustain the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claims
9 and 19 because ordinary, skilled artisans would understand the meaning of
"predetermined time period" interpreted in light of the Specification.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 9 and 19 as indefinite.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER GUDIPATI, HE, AND
OSHIMA
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
arguments for emphasis.
Appellants contend that the combination of Gudipati, He, and Oshima
does not teach or suggest the claimed subject matter of
modifying, by the computer, the first memory area associated
with the first machine by replacing each occurrence of the
password with a first predetermined recognizable marker in
order to eliminate occurrences of the password in the first
memory area.
App. Br. 14.
Appellants also contend "Oshima discloses deleting a password but
urges that 'deleting', without any other additional details, is not analogous to
5
Appeal 2018/002556
Application 15/040,137
'replacing each occurrence of the password with a first predetermined
recognizable marker', as recited in claim 1." Id.
The Examiner responds that,
Oshima teaches that a password is stored in memory in
association with a password identifier (ID), and the password is
deleted from memory after its use, after a failed authentication,
after a predetermined time following a failed authentication, or
when an attack is suspected (see, e.g. par. 0034, 0041-0043).
Contrary to Appellant's argument (Appellant's Brief, p. 14 last
par.-p. 15 1st par.), Oshima physically deletes the password from
memory "to prevent information leak" ( see par. 41) by
overwriting the password location with a predetermined pattern
of zero bits (hence the word "delete"). A pattern of all zeros,
while not unique, is recognizable. That is, consistent with the
broadest reasonable interpretation, a "predetermined
recognizable marker" literally reads upon a string of all zeros.
Ans. 8. ( emphasis ours).
In other words, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed
"predetermined recognizable marker" includes Oshima's string of zeros.
Appellants do not provide a definition in the claims or in the Specification
that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading of the term
"predetermined recognizable marker."
Regarding the Examiner's broader reading, because "applicants may
amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution
creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health and
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Thus, we concur with the Examiner's conclusion that Oshima in
combination with Gudipati and He teaches or suggests Appellants' claimed
invention (id. at 7-9). We note Appellants' arguments addressing the
teaching of Oshima (App. Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 4--5), but, in light of the
6
Appeal 2018/002556
Application 15/040,137
broad terms recited in claim 1 ( and claims 11 and 21) and the arguments
presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish their claimed
invention over the prior art combination relied on by the Examiner.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 8, and 12-15, Appellants
argue these claims are patentable due to their dependency on their respective
independent or dependent claims (App. Br. 15 and 18). Thus, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, 7, 8, and 12-15, dependent respectively
from claims 1 and 11.
Appellants provided additional arguments with respect to the
patentability of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, and 16 (App. Br. 15-17, 19-20;
Reply Br. 5-7). The Examiner has rebutted each of those arguments in the
Answer by a preponderance of the evidence (Ans. 9-12). We agree with the
Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning and adopt them as our own.
Consequently, we conclude there is no reversible error in the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, and 21.
DECISION
We proforma affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10-18,
20, and 21 on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double
patenting.
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8, 10-18, 20,
and 21 under§ 103.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 9 and 19 under
§ 112, second paragraph.
7
Appeal 2018/002556
Application 15/040,137
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8