Ex Parte Graves et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 7, 2014

12081684 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/081,684 04/18/2008 Alan Frank Graves 16357 DIV 2908
293 7590 04/08/2014
DOWELL & DOWELL P.C.
103 Oronoco St.
Suite 220
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
SIMITOSKI, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2014 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 ALAN FRANK GRAVES, JEFFREY FITCHETT,
STEPHEN ELLIOTT, JOHN WATKINS, and
DANY SYLVAIN
________________

Appeal 2011-010894
Application 12/081,684
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 40-57, 60, and 61. Claims 1-39, 58, 59, and 62-81 are
canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 40-46, 52, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Brown (US 5,933,136; issued Aug. 3, 1999) and Blakley (US
6,067,623; issued May 23, 2000). Ans. 3-7.
Appeal 2011-010894
Application 12/081,684

2
Claims 47-51, 53, 54, 56, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Brown, Blakley, and Koo (US 6,874,085 B1;
issued Mar. 29, 2005). Ans. 7-8.
Claims 60 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Brown, Blakley, and Kenworthy (US 2002/0188953 A1; published
Dec. 12, 2002). Ans. 8-11.
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “a switching entity disposed between
healthcare data processing resources and non-healthcare data processing
resources.” Abstract. Claim 40 is illustrative and reproduced below:
40. An access controller, disposed between healthcare data
processing resources and non-healthcare data processing resources, and
connectable to an end user device via a communication link, the access
controller comprising:

a switching entity for switching between a first state in which the end
user device is communicatively coupled to the healthcare data processing
resources and a second state in which the end user device is
communicatively coupled to the non-healthcare data processing resources,
wherein in the first state, the switching entity operates to support a
healthcare session and in the second state, the switching entity operates to
support a non-healthcare session; and

a control entity for controlling the state in which the switching entity
operates at least in part on the basis of an authentication request message
received at the access controller from a user of the end user device.

Appeal 2011-010894
Application 12/081,684

3
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 40-46, 52, AND 55 OVER BROWN
AND BLAKLEY
The Examiner finds Brown and Blakley teach all limitations of claim
40. Ans. 3-5. The Examiner relies on Brown’s headend 12 (Figure 4) and
Blakley’s middle tier server 120 (Figure 1) for teaching the recited (claim
40) “control entity for controlling the state in which the switching entity
operates at least in part on the basis of an authentication request message
received at the access controller from a user of the end user device.” Ans. 4-
5 (citing Blakley, col. 4, ll. 18-26, 55-57; col. 5, ll. 17-30).
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
(i)
Blakley discloses a middle tier server that is able to transform
id credentials supplied by the client into credentials used to
access enterprise resources. Blakley does not disclose
controlling the state of a switching entity between two types of
resources at least in part on the basis of an authentication
request message from a user.
App. Br. 7; see also App. Br. 8-9 (discussing the teachings of Blakley),
Reply Br. 13-16.
(ii) “[I]f one were to amend Blakley in the manner suggested by the
Examiner, the purpose of Blakley would be destroyed.” App. Br. 10; see
also Reply Br. 16-17.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments.
Brown’s headend 12 switches between central server 18 and
entertainment program source 11. See Brown, Fig. 4.
Blakley (col. 4, ll. 51-57) describes:
Appeal 2011-010894
Application 12/081,684

4
A client 102 executing a commercial browser 104 makes a
request 105 for certain data. The request passes through the
[I]nternet (or simple network) 106 and is presented to the web
server software 122 executing in middle tier server 120. The
middle tier server 120 detects a request for resource access and
first authenticates the user using user supplied credentials or
client certificate.
We see no reason why Brown’s headend 12 (Figure 4) and Blakley’s
middle tier server 120 (Figure 1; col. 4, ll. 18-26, 55-57; col. 5, ll. 17-30),
collectively, do not describe the recited (claim 40) “control entity for
controlling the state in which the switching entity operates at least in part on
the basis of an authentication request message received at the access
controller from a user of the end user device.” See Ans. 4-5.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)(citations omitted).
Here, Brown (headend 12, Figure 4) teaches a control entity for
controlling the state in which the switching entity operates. And Blakley
(middle tier server 20, Figure 1) teaches access control at least in part on the
basis of an authentication request message received at the access controller
from a user of the end user device.
Regarding Appellants’ argument (i), we find this argument unavailing
because Blakley authenticates the user using user supplied credentials. To
the extent that Blakley’s access to multiple resources occurs subsequently,
Appeal 2011-010894
Application 12/081,684

5
such access is still at least in part on the basis of the initially supplied
credentials from the user. See Ans. 11-14.
Regarding Appellants’ argument (ii), we find this argument
unavailing because the Examiner does not modify Blakley. Rather, the
Examiner explained why it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to modify Brown in view of Blakley to arrive at the
claimed invention. See Ans. 5, 14-15. Further, we also note that the
intended purpose of Brown would not be disturbed by the addition of
Blakley’s access control, as an additional access control, in Brown.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 40, as well as
claims 41-46, 52, and 55, which are not argued separately with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 47-51, 53, 54, 56, AND 57 OVER
BROWN, BLAKLEY, AND KOO
Appellants argue “Koo fails to overcome the deficiencies of both
Brown and Blakley that were discussed above with respect to independent
claim 40.” App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments for reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 40.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 47-51, 53,
54, 56, and 57.

Appeal 2011-010894
Application 12/081,684

6
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 60 AND 61 OVER BROWN,
BLAKLEY, AND KENWORTHY
Appellants present the same arguments for claim 60 as presented for
claim 40, and further argue that Kenworthy does not overcome the
deficiencies of Brown and Blakley. App. Br. 11-12.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments for reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 40.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 60, and of
claim 61, which is not argued separately with particularity.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 40-57, 60, and 61 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

rwk