Ex Parte HandlerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 201612856025 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/856,025 08/13/2010 21186 7590 06/30/2016 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A. P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 Brad Handler 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. 2759.003US2 1210 EXAMINER AKINTOLA, OLABODE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3691 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2016 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRAD HANDLER Appeal2014-003685 Applicationl2/856,025 Technology Center 3600 Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-23 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. Appeal2014-003685 Applicationl2/856,025 THE INVENTION The Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a method and system for credit application and identity authentication (Spec., para. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An authentication architecture to authenticate a user, the authentication architecture comprising: one or more computer processors and storage configured as: a user access layer enabling one or more storage devices to provide and receive data within the authentication architecture, the data including data to establish a user authentication account, and a set of business rules established by the user, the rules comprising a plurality of conditions under which user authentication information is renewed, for managing the user authentication account; a user interface layer, coupled to the user access layer, to provide interface modules for interacting with the one or more user devices; a user services layer, coupled to the user interface layer, to ",..1 h . . . ,..1 • ,..1 • h prov1ue aut11ent1cat1on services anu assoc1ateu services, t11e user services layer carrying out the business rules; and a data storage layer, coupled to the user services layer, to store and provide data to the authentication services and associated services. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Royer Kirkland Gupta Coffee US 2004/0155101 Al US 2004/0254868 Al US 2006/0036553 Al US 2006/0129691 Al 2 Aug. 12, 2004 Dec. 16, 2004 Feb. 16,2006 June 15, 2006 Appeal2014-003685 Application12/856,025 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gupta in view of Royer/Coffee. 2. Claims 20---23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gupta in view of Royer/Coffee and further in view of Kirkland. FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1. Additionally, we make the following findings of facts for conventional dictionary definitions2: "Expiration" in an appropriate definition is defined as: "[a] formal termination on a closing date, as of a contract or subscription". "Renew" is defined as: [t]o make new or as if new again; make young, fresh, or strong again; bring back into good condition". ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for: 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 2 Both of the following definitions are found in Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, Simon & Schuster, 1988. The definitions used are found at pages 478 and 1136 respectively. 3 Appeal2014-003685 Application12/856,025 the rules comprising a plurality of conditions under which user authentication information is renewed, for managing the user authentication account. (Appeal Br. 7-11, Reply Br. 2-5; emphasis added). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is found in Royer at paras. 102 and 104; and Coffee at paras. 826 and 835 (Ans. 3, Final Rej. 3). We agree with the Appellant. Here, the cited claim limitation requires that rules comprise "a plurality of conditions under which user authentication information is renewed". The above citations to Royer and Coffee fail to disclose this. For example, Royer at para. 104 does disclose that the PIN (which would be user authentication) may expire after a certain time period, but this is a mere expiration, in contrast to being "renewed" or a "renewal" as specifically claimed which would take the process further to bring back authentication to an operational state such as, by instituting a new PIN. Similarly, Coffee at para 826 discloses mere password "expiration" and not the password being "renewed". Additionally, paragraph 835 of Coffee does discloses changing a password at expiration, but the final Office Action and the Answer only provide a cursory analysis that does not indicate sufficiently the link between Coffee's disclosure of changing a password at expiration and the aforementioned claim limitation. See Final Act. 3 ("Coffee similarly teaches this concept at i-fi-10826, 0835"); Ans. 4 ("See also Coffee as recited above."). For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claim is not sustained. Claim 20 contains a similar limitation and the rejection of this claim and its dependent claims is not sustained as well for the same reasons given above. 4 Appeal2014-003685 Application12/856,025 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation