Ex Parte Fox et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2016

11559594 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111559,594 11/14/2006
106095 7590 04/26/2016
Baker Botts LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregory A. Fox
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.
063170.8403 4358
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, LINGLAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2016 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):
PTOmaill@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte J. GREGORY A. FOX and TIMOTHY T. TYE
Appeal2014-002194
Application 11/559,594
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 1-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
REVERSE.
We have considered Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions,
and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has
not established the combination of Kunzelman (US 6,041,357; March 21,
2000), Moulckers (US 2006/0259499 Al; Nov. 16, 2006) and Dias
(US 2003/0002526 Al; Jan. 2, 2003) teaches or suggests initiate, in
Appeal2014-002194
Application 11/559,594
response to receiving from the first web application via the second session
the at least a portion of the session state information for the first session,
generation of a first message key for the session state information ("initiate
generation of message key" limitation), as recited in claim 1 and
commensurately recited in independent claims 12 and 23.
The Examiner finds Kunzelman teaches receiving from the first web
application (Application on server A) via the second session (Application on
server B) at least a portion of the session state information for the first
session (session token). Final Act. 5-6 (citing Kunzelman Fig. 2, elements
S4, S5). In addition to the session information included in the session token,
the Examiner also finds Kunzelman's out-of-band data is session
information. Ans. 6 (citing Kunzelman Fig. 2; 5:40-56). The Examiner
further finds Kunzelman' s session token with encoded version identifier
teaches the message key. Final Act. 6 (citing Kunzelman 5: 50-5 5; 6: 14--
33); Ans. 4--5. The Examiner relies on Dias to teach an identifier (message
key) may be generated by either side of the communication. Ans. 6 (citing
Dias ,-r 34).
We have reviewed the cited sections of the references and agree with
Appellants' arguments (Br. 20-23) that the Examiner has not established the
references teach or suggest generation of the message identifier (session
token with version identifier) is initiated in response to receiving the session
state information (session token or out-of-band data). The cited sections of
Kunzelman describe server B receives the session token 104 from server A.
Kunzelman 5:38--42. The session token 104 contains session information
(e.g., Unique Session identifier, Time of session creation) and also may
reference out-of-band data that may be needed by Server B. Kunzelman
2
Appeal2014-002194
Application 11/559,594
2:40-49; 3:43--47). Kunzelman further describes a version identifier can be
encoded in the session token, so that if out-of-band session information
changes, the source server node (server A) can change the version identifier
whenever a new session token is generated by the source node. Kunzelman
6:22--41. The cited sections of Kunzelman do not describe either the initial
token or a token with a later version number (equated by the Examiner to be
the message identifier) is generated in response to receiving the token or out-
of-band data (equated by the Examiner to be the session state information).
The Examiner does not use Dias or Moulckers to teach generation of a
message identifier is initiated in response to receipt of session information.
Moreover, the Examiner's findings for Dias do not sufficiently establish or
explain how Kunzelman's server B could generate the session token 104
because server B appears to lack the session information contained within
the token 104. See Ans. 6 (discussing Dias); Kunzelman col. 4:28-5:58
(describing the composition and purpose of the session token 104).
For the reasons stated above, Appellants persuade us the Examiner
has not established the combination of Kunzelman, Moulckers, and Dias
teaches or suggests the "initiate generation of a message key" limitation.
The Examiner does not make any findings that the additional reference of
record (Aoki (US 2004/0260949 Al; Dec. 23, 2004)) teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of: (1) independent claims 1, 12, and 23; and (2) the remaining
claims, which depend from one of the aforementioned independent claims.
3
Appeal2014-002194
Application 11/559,594
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-33 are reversed.
REVERSED
4