Ex Parte Feirouz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 5, 201511167787 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2015) 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. 11/167,787 06/27/2005 Elie Feirouz LOT920050068US1/1174-002 8000 44185 7590 06/05/2015 BAINWOOD HUANG & ASSOCIATES LLC c/o LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE 2 Connector Road Westborough, MA 01581 EXAMINER FABBRI, ANTHONY E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2453 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/05/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ELIE FEIROUZ, DORON ROSENBERG, RICHARD M. WILSON, and DARIN W. FISHER Appeal 2012-012615 Application 11/167,787 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, STEPHEN C. SIU, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-9, 22, 25, 35, 36, 38-43, 45, 47, and 49-51. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a system for storing a session cookie from another client application program, in which a separate client application is allowed to launch an external browser, and to supply a Appeal 2012-012615 Application 11/167,787 2 browser with a session cookie containing user specific session information See Spec. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method for providing user access to a Web browser application program, comprising: receiving, by a Web browser application program from an application program other than said Web browser application program, a session cookie, wherein said session cookie includes user data comprising at least one user authentication credential and a range of uniform resource locators (URLs) for which said user data is valid; receiving, by said Web browser application program from said application other than said Web browser application program, a uniform resource locator indicating a secure resource; and accessing, by said Web browser program, said secure resource indicated by said uniform resource locator, said accessing said secure resource including issuing a request for a Web page identified by said uniform resource locator, said Web browser application program including said authentication credential in said request responsive to said uniform resource locator being within said range of uniform resource locators (URLs) for which said user data is valid. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Stewart US 5,715,453 Feb. 3, 1998 Kay US 6,968,364 B1 Aug. 6, 2002 Norris US 6,718,328 B1 Apr. 6, 2004 Wong US 6,968,364 B1 Nov. 22, 2005 Laidlaw US 7,454,622 B2 Nov. 18, 2008 Appeal 2012-012615 Application 11/167,787 3 THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 22, 25, 35, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 47, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Wong, Kay and Norris. Ans. 5-16.1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, 36, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Wong, Kay, Norris and Laidlaw. Ans. 16-18. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 50 and 51 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Wong, Kay, Norris and Stewart. Ans. 18-20. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9-18) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 4-5) 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 (Final Rej. 3-19), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants. Appeal Brief (Ans. 5-23). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 1, 2012; the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 20, 2012; and, the Reply Brief filed September 20, 2012. Appeal 2012-012615 Application 11/167,787 4 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-9, 22, 25, 35, 36, 38-43, 45, 47, and 49-51 based upon the failure of the cited references to show or suggest certain claimed features set forth within independent claims 1 and 35. Specifically, Appellants urge that the cited references fail to show or suggest a session cookie “wherein said session cookie includes user data comprising at least one user authentication credential and a range of uniform resource locators (URLs) for which said user data is valid” and thereafter accessing, by a Web browser program, a secure resource identified by a uniform resource locator “within said range of uniform resource locators (URLs) for which said user data is valid.” Appellants argue that the cited combination of references discloses a token which includes a user’s IP address, a URL, a valid time window, an authorizing publisher, etc. where the URL contains a key (e.g. random number) associated with a “secret” secure web site. App. Br. 12-15, Reply Br. 4-5. Appellants only present arguments that rely upon specific limitations which are identically contained within independent claims 1 and 35. Accordingly we will decide the appeal of these claims on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii). In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds that Norris discloses at column 7, line 50 through column 8, line 20, that a security token (which may be a cookie) may limit access to some URLs representing content, but not allow access to other content. The Examiner also notes that a given token may include any combination of properties, permitting a plurality of a particular publisher’s works to be unlocked, thereby allowing access to any work within the “range of URLs” set forth in Appellants’ claims. Appeal 2012-012615 Application 11/167,787 5 We find the Examiner’s position persuasive. The cited combination of references suggests a token (or cookie) which includes a user credential (an IP address identifying a user) and a URL limiting access to some content. See Norris, column 7, lines 51-57. We find that the proposed suggestion by the Examiner that multiple instances of a particular publisher’s works may be designated is well within the suggestion of the Norris reference, particularly in view of the express statement by Norris at column 8, lines 5-6 that “[a] token can include any combination of the above-listed components based on the needs of the publisher.” Consequently, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 6-9, 22, 25, 35, 36, 38-43, 45, 47, and 49-51 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6-9, 22, 25, 35, 36, 38- 43, 45, 47, and 49-51 under § 103 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 lv Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation