Ex Parte Harper

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2011

10729293 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2011)

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.
10/729,293 12/05/2003 Raymond Harper 030250; 190250-1500 2178
38823 7590 01/25/2011
AT&T Legal Department - TKHR
Attn: Patent Docketing
One AT&T Way
Room 2A-207
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
ALMEIDA, DEVIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2432
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RAYMOND HARPER
____________________

Appeal 2009-007148
Application 10/729,2931
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JAY P. LUCAS, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and CAROLYN D.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 Application filed December 5, 2003. The real party in interest is AT&T.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007148
Application 10/729,293

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals from a final rejection of claims 1 to 29 under
authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We affirm.

Appellant’s invention relates to a password management system for a
switched access remote test system (SARTS) that tests frame relay circuits
(Spec. 2, ll. 4 to 5). The graphical overlay for the UNIX-based program
permits users to change their passwords more efficiently (Spec. 12, ll. 13 to
15). In the words of Appellant:
If the user wishes to change his or her
password, the password manager sends a change
password request to the server … . Again, the
password manager typically awaits a response
from the server … . The response from the server
typically comes in numerous forms based upon the
server or the time of day. … The password
manager then checks the response against the
expected results.
(Spec. 13, l. 22 to 14, l. 8).
The following claim illustrates the claims on appeal:
Claim 1:
1. A password management system, comprising:

graphical user interface logic residing on a
first computer system operable to receive a current
password from a user, prompt the user to
determine whether the user desires to change the
2
Appeal 2009-007148
Application 10/729,293

current password, and responsive to the user
response receive a new password;

password configuration logic residing on the
first computer system operable to confirm the
current password associated with the user on a
switched access remote test system residing on a
second computer system remote from the first
computer system;

password administration logic residing on
the first computer system, responsive to the
password confirmation logic and the graphical user
interface, operable to receive the new password
and to change the current password on the
switched access remote test system; and

expiration logic residing on the first
computer system operable to determine if the
current password is approaching its expiration
prior to logging onto the switched access remote
test system residing on the second computer
system and is operable to cause the user to be
prompted to change the current password if the
current password is determined to be approaching
its expiration.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ackroff US 5,105,438 Apr. 14, 1992
Kadooka US 5,606,663 Feb. 25, 1997
Goldberg US 5,748,890 May 05, 1998
Limsico US 5,793,952 Aug. 11, 1998

3
Appeal 2009-007148
Application 10/729,293

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:

R1: Claims 1 to 10 and 12 to 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for being obvious over Limsico in view of Ackroff further in view of
Kadooka.
R2: Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious
over Limsico in view of Ackroff further in view of Kadooka further in view
of Goldberg.

We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Brief. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue specifically turns
on whether Limsico and Kadooka render obvious Appellant’s claim
limitation “expiration logic residing … operable to determine if the current
password is approaching its expiration … and … operable to cause the user
to be prompted to change the current password if the current password is
determined to be approaching its expiration.” (Claim 1).

4
Appeal 2009-007148
Application 10/729,293

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Disclosure
1. Appellant has invented a system, method, and medium for password
management on a distributed computing network (Spec. 2, l. 5; Fig. 1).
Appellant’s claimed system includes expiration logic that determines if a
current user password is approaching expiration (claim 1). The claimed
“expiration logic” prompts a user to change the current password when the
current password is near expiration (id.).
Limsico
2. The Limsico reference discloses a password management system on a
distributed computing network. Limsico’s system includes password aging
that determines if a current user password is approaching expiration.
Limsico’s password aging prompts a user to change the current password
when the current password is near expiration (col. 9, ll. 34 to 40).
Kadooka
3. The Kadooka reference discloses a password management system
(col. 1, ll. 6 to 9). Kadooka further discloses determining if a current user
password is approaching expiration and prompting a user to change the
current password when the current password approaches expiration (col. 1,
ll. 49 to 57).

5
Appeal 2009-007148
Application 10/729,293

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
Examiner error. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 1 to 10 and 12 to 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) [R1]

The Examiner has rejected the noted claims for being obvious over
Limsico, Ackroff, and Kadooka, pages 3 to 10 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Appellant argues that the Limsico and Kadooka references describe a
host computer of a password protected computer system having password
routines residing on the host computer of the password protected computer
system (Brief 10, middle). These password routines of Limsico and
Kadooka do not reside on a second computer, according to Appellant (id.).
Thus, the proposed combination does not teach all of the limitations of claim
1 (id.).
We disagree with Appellant’s argument for the following reasons.
We find that Appellant has invented a system, method, and medium for
password management on a distributed computing network (FF#1).
Appellant’s claimed system includes expiration logic that determines if a
current user password is approaching expiration (id.). Appellant’s claimed
“expiration logic” prompts a user to change the current password when the
current password is near expiration (id.). In comparison, we find that the
Limsico reference discloses a password management system on a distributed
computing network (FF#2). We find that Limsico’s system includes
6
Appeal 2009-007148
Application 10/729,293

password aging (i.e., Appellant’s claimed expiration logic) that determines if
a current user password is approaching expiration (id.). We find that
Limsico’s password aging prompts a user to change the current password
when the current password is near expiration (id.).
In addition, we find that the Kadooka reference discloses a password
management system (FF#3). Kadooka further discloses determining if a
current user password is approaching expiration and prompting a user to
change the current password when the current password approaches
expiration (id.).
In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007), the
Supreme Court identified circumstances in which a combination of elements
(i.e., a sensor on an adjustable pedal in a car) would have been obvious to
try. More specifically, the Court stated: “When there is a design need or
market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good
reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” Id. at
421.
We apply KSR’s teachings to the facts on the record before us. Here,
there is a design need to ensure a user’s ability to change passwords (i.e., to
provide enterprise-based solutions) in the SARTS system. The need is
fulfilled by designing Appellant’s claimed “expiration logic” on a distributed
computing system. Yet, only a finite number of ways exist in which a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have arranged Appellant’s claimed
“expiration logic.” That is, the claimed “expiration logic” would have been
configured by a skilled artisan either remotely or locally located relative to
the switched access remote testing system (SARTS). Given the design need
7
Appeal 2009-007148
Application 10/729,293

to provide enterprise-based solutions on different computers (e.g., via a
network), we find that there would have been a finite number of identified,
predictable solutions (e.g., placement of the expiration logic on the claimed
“first computer system” or the claimed “second computer system”) that
would have been within the technical grasp of the skilled artisan. In
accordance with the teachings of KSR as applied in the above-stated
analysis, we find that Appellant’s claimed “expiration logic residing …
operable to determine if the current password is approaching its expiration
… and … operable to cause the user to be prompted to change the current
password if the current password is determined to be approaching its
expiration” (claim 1) is rendered obvious by the combination of Limsico and
Kadooka. We thus conclude Appellant has not shown error in the rejection
of claim 1.
Regarding claims 12 to 29, Appellants make separate arguments in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). (See App. Br. 12 to 18).
However, the arguments are the same as those already addressed above with
respect to claim 1. Therefore, we will not repeat the arguments here.
Claims 12 to 29 fall for the same reasons as described for claim 1.

Argument with respect to the rejection
of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) [R2]

The Examiner has rejected claim 11 for being obvious over Limsico,
Ackroff, Kadooka, and Goldberg, pages 10 to 11 of the Examiner’s Answer.

8
Appeal 2009-007148
Application 10/729,293

Appellant makes no separate arguments in accordance with
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Accordingly, we affirm the rejection R2.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to 29.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections R1 and R2 of claims 1 to 29.

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

peb

AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT – TKHR
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING
ONE AT&T WAY
ROOM 2A-207
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
9