Ex Parte Foster et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

10192999 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/192,999 07/10/2002
22879 7590 09/29/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ward Scott Foster
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.
82000022 7182
EXAMINER
POPHAM, JEFFREY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WARD SCOTT FOSTER,
ROBERT JOHN MADRIL, JR., and
SHELL STERLING SIMPSON
Appeal2014-009480
Application 10/192,999 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-7, 16-19, 26, and 34--42, which are all the
claims pending in the application. Claims 8-15, 20-25, and 27-33 were
cancelled previously. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009480
Application 10/192,999
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 16, and 26 are independent claims. The claims generally
relate to "a method and system for providing secure but limited access to a
resource in a distributed environment." Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 is representative
and reproduced below:
1. In a computer network, a method for granting a request
from a first resource to access a second resource comprising a
circuit, said method comprising:
with said second resource, receiving a session request to
access the second resource in a new session;
verifying that the request was received from the first
resource;
for each individual session request received, verifying that
an authorized client directed the first resource to request access
to the second resource; and
authenticating credentials presented for the client;
wherein, for each individual session request for access by
the first resource to the second resource, access is granted only
for an individual request that is verified as having been initiated
by said client.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 16-19, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Buhle (US Pat. No. 6,286,104 Bl, iss. Sept. 4, 2001).
Final Act. 9-13. Claims 1, 4--7, 16, 18, 19, 26, 34, and 35 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Kramer (US Pat. No.
6,986,040 Bl, iss. Jan. 10, 2006). Final Act. 14--19. Claims 2, 3, and 17
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Kramer
and BEA (BEA Systems, Using WebLogic SSL,
http://www.weblogic.com/docs51/classdocs/ API_secure.html (last visited
Feb. 28, 2006)). Final Act. 19-21. Claims 36-42 stand rejected under
2
Appeal2014-009480
Application 10/192,999
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Kramer and Rosko (US Pat.
No. 8,438,086, iss. May 7, 2013). Final Act. 21-24.
THE APPLIED PRIOR ART
Buhle
Buhle is directed to systems and methods "for allowing a middle-tier
server in a relational database system to perform database operations on
behalf of clients in a manner that ensures proper authentication,
accountability and auditing at each tier." Buhle 1:7-11. Buhle purports to
address "a need for a relational database system that allows a database
administrator to limit or restrict the authority and ability of middle-tier
servers," such that the "middle-tier server's actions would be auditable and
the administrator would be able to limit the privileges and/or roles of clients
and middle-tier servers when a client connects to a data server through a
middle-tier server." Id. at 1 :66-2:5. According to Buhle, certain prior art
methods were not able to prevent "the middle-tier server from assuming one
client's identity (e.g., one with high-level privileges) and performing
database operations on its own behalf or on behalf of a different user." Id. at
1 :57---60. Buhle describes that a "middle-tier server through which clients
connect to a data server is configured to [both] connect to (e.g., establish a
session with) a data server under the middle-tier server's own identity (e.g.,
application name, server name)" as well as "establish sessions for one or
more clients in order to perform database operations on their behalf." Id. at
2:17-23.
Kramer
Kramer is directed to systems and methods "for establishing a secure
communication channel between a client and an application server." Kramer
3
Appeal2014-009480
Application 10/192,999
2: 11-13. Specifically, a client obtains a ticket, which has an identifier and a
session key, from a ticket service over a secure communication channel, and
sends the identifier to the application server for which access is desired. Id.
at 2: 13-18, 2:25-30, 2:36-40. The application server then obtains a copy of
the session key from the ticket service. Id. at 2: 19-20, 2:30-33, 2:40-42,
8:5-15. The client and application server then encrypt and decrypt messages
using the session key, thus establishing a secure communication channel. Id.
at 2:20-24, 2:42--45. In an alternative embodiment, the ticket service
transmits the ticket (both the session key and identifier) to the application
server without the application server requesting the ticket; the application
server then finds the session key locally using the identifier the client
transmits. Id. at 8:45-52. Accordingly, Kramer describes various
embodiments for granting a client access to an application on an application
server and encrypting communications between the client and application
server without transmitting client or user credentials in an unsecured
manner. Id. at 2: 11-13.
OPINION
Claim Construction
Independent claims 1, 16, and 26 recite a method, computer-readable
medium, and system, respectively, for granting a first resource access to a
second resource upon verification and authentication of certain details
relating to a request for such access. Claim 1 recites, in part, ''for each
individual session request received, verifYing that an authorized client
directed the first resource to request access to the second resource" and ''for
each individual session request for access by the first resource to the second
resource, access is granted only for an individual request that is verified as
4
Appeal2014-009480
Application 10/192,999
having been initiated by said client." Independent claims 16 and 26 recite
similar limitations. The Examiner states that, because "there is only a single
request in claim 1," "stating 'for each individual session request received' ..
. [and] 'for each individual session request [for access] by the first resource
to the second resource' is meaningless." Ans. 3--4. We disagree. The
identified language recited in claims 1, 16, and 26 require the recited
systems and method to verify each session request received by the
system/method and to grant access to the resource for which access is
requested only when the system or method verifies that a client initiated or
directed the request. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to systems or
methods that do not verify, for each session request received, that "a client
directed the first resource to request access to the second resource."
Similarly, the claims are not directed to systems or methods in which access
is granted to the requested resource when the system or method does not
verifY that a client initiated or directed the request.
Additionally, the Examiner implicitly interprets the claim to mean that
the client directs the first resource to send a request to the second resource
seeking access, by the client, to the second resource. See Final Act. 7; Ans.
7. Appellants, on the other hand, implicitly construe the claims to require
that the client directs the first resource to request access, by the first
resource, to the second resource. See App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 13-14.
We have reviewed the claims and the Specification and we agree with
Appellants' implicit construction of the claims. Specifically, claim 16
recites "granting that individual request for the first resource to access the
second resource." Claim 16, therefore, explicitly states the request is "for
the first resource to access the second resource." Claim 1 recites "verifying
5
Appeal2014-009480
Application 10/192,999
that an authorized client directed the first resource to request access to the
second resource," and claim 26 recites "a client ... directed the second
resource to request to access to the resource service." The Specification
provides additional context regarding the claimed invention. In the
Background of the Invention, the Specification explains that "granting one
resource access to another resource compounds the security considerations."
Spec. i-f 5. The Specification identifies a particular security problem that
"the user has no assurance that the printing resource will not again access the
data resource using the provided credentials without user's consent or
knowledge." Id. The Specification also clearly states "the present invention
is directed to ... providing a first network resource with secure but limited
access to a second network resource," and "the first resource cannot access
the second without the user's knowledge or, at least, implicit consent." Id.
i-f 6 (emphases added). Accordingly, we determine that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the Specification recite, in
part, requests for access, by a first resource, to a second resource.
Anticipation of Claims 1-3, 16--19, and 26 by Buhle
As discussed above, Buhle discloses a system allowing a middle-tier
server to establish a session with (i.e., connect to or access) a data server
either on behalf of the middle-tier server itself or on behalf of one or more
clients. Buhle 2: 17-23. The Examiner maps the middle-tier server to the
recited first resource and the data server to the recited second resource.
Thus, because Buhle discloses granting the middle-tier server (first resource)
access to the data server (second resource), even when the access requested
is not done at the direction of the client, Buhle does not disclose "for each
individual session request received, verifying that an authorized client
6
Appeal2014-009480
Application 10/192,999
directed the first resource to request access to the second resource," or "for
each individual session request for access by the first resource to the second
resource, access is granted only for an individual request that is verified as
having been initiated by said client," as recited in claim 1 and
commensurately recited in claims 16 and 26.
Obviousness of Claims 1-7, 16--19, 26, and 34-42 in view of Kramer
Appellants argue Kramer "addresses an entirely different situation
than that claimed" because "Kramer describes a 'client' device directly
accessing an application server," rather than "the claimed scenario in which
a client (operated by an authorized user) directs a first resource to access a
second resource." App. Br. 16 (stating Kramer is inapposite because
"[t]here is an actor missing in the scenario of Kramer"); Reply Br. 13.
Responsive to the Examiner's mappings (i.e., Kramer's ticket service
corresponding to the recited first resource and Kramer's application server
corresponding to the recited second resource), Appellants assert "Kramer is
missing a 'first resource' which accesses a 'second resource' on behalf of
the user/client." Reply Br. 14. Appellants further clarify that Kramer's
client directly accesses the application server, and "[t]he ticket service in
Kramer does not access a resource on behalf of the client, but rather sends
the client a key to directly establish a communication channel with the
desired resource." Id. (citing Kramer Abstr.). As discussed above,
Appellants implicitly argue in this appeal that the proper construction of the
claims requires a client directing a first resource to request access, by the
first resource, to a second resource and, upon verifying certain information,
granting the first resource access to the second resource. Thus, Appellants
contend there is an "actor missing" because Kramer's client directly
7
Appeal2014-009480
Application 10/192,999
accesses the application server, and there is no intermediate "actor" that
accesses the application server at the direction of the client. App. Br. 16.
Given our construction of the claims discussed above, the Examiner
has not sufficiently shown that Kramer renders obvious the claims because
the Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Kramer that teaches or
suggests a request for, or grant of access by, the first resource to the second
resource.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3,
16-19, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and to reject claims 1-7, 16-19, 26,
and 34--42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
8