Ex Parte HavercanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201612935802 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/935,802 09/30/2010 Peter E. Havercan GB920070202US1 7098 141836 7590 IBM Poughkeepsie C/O: Fabian VanCott 215 South State Street Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 12/27/2016 EXAMINER POTRATZ, DANIEL B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): patents @ fabianvancott.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER E. HAVERCAN Appeal 2015-001887 Application 12/935,802 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 10, 13 through 24, and 26 through 28. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2015-001887 Application 12/935,802 INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to a method of handling unacceptable replacement passwords. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method of operating a server comprising, with a processor: receiving an authorization request comprising a first password, accessing an expiry date for the first password, transmitting a response comprising password status information comprising the expiry date, ascertaining whether the first password has expired, and receiving a second password as a replacement password if the first password has expired; ascertaining whether the second password is unacceptable as the replacement password, and if the second password is unacceptable as the replacement, transmitting a response including an integer value representing a retry parameter, the integer value being unchanged. REJECTION AT ISSUE1 The Examiner has rejected claims 17 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walters (US 7,200,754 B2, issued Apr. 3, 2007) and Ashok et al. (US 7,373,516 B2, issued May 13, 2008). Answer 5—8.2 1 Claims 1,9, 17, 20, and 29 are objected to because of informalities. See Final Act. 4—5. Claim objections are generally petitionable, not appealable, matters and are not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See MPEP §§ 1002 and 1201. 2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 11, 2014, Reply Brief filed November 24, 2014, Final Action mailed February 18, 2014, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on August 26, 2014. 2 Appeal 2015-001887 Application 12/935,802 The Examiner has rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walters, Ashok and Knowles et al. (US 2008/0134239 Al, published June 5, 2008). Answer 8. The Examiner has rejected claims 19, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walters, Ashok and Shenker et al. (US 2005/0006461 Al, published Jan. 13,2005). Answer9-ll. The Examiner has rejected claims 22 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walters, Ashok and Huang (US 2007/024170). Answer 11-13. The Examiner has rejected claims 1,5,9, 13, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walters, Shenker, and Ashok. Answer 13—17. The Examiner has rejected claims 2, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walters, Shenker, Ashok and Knowles et al. (US 2008/0134239 Al, published June 5, 2008). Answer 17—18. The Examiner has rejected claims 6 through 8, and 14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walters, Shenker, Ashok and Huang (WO 2007/0274170 Al, published Mar. 1, 2007). Answer 18—20. The Examiner has rejected claims 2 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walters, Shenker, Ashok and Chang et al. (US 2007/0174901 Al, published July 26, 2007). Answer 21—22. ISSUES Independent Claim 17 Appellant argues, on pages 15 through 17 of the Appeal Brief and pages 8 and 9 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 17 is in error. Appellant’s arguments present us with the 3 Appeal 2015-001887 Application 12/935,802 following issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Walters and Ashok teaches the claim limitation directed to code, which when executed by a processor modifies a way that a user is prompted for credentials at a client device based on the expiry date. Dependent claim 20 Appellant argues, on pages 15 through 17 of the Appeal Brief and pages 11 and 12 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 20 is in error. Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issue: did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Walters, Ashok and Shenker teaches the claim limitation directed to code, which when executed by a processor to ascertain whether a new password is unacceptable as a replacement and transmitting an integer value if the password is unacceptable as the replacement parameter. Independent claims 1 and 9 Appellant’s arguments directed to independent claims 1 and 9 present us with the same issue as discussed with respect to claim 20. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims, 2, 5 through 8, and 17 through 19, 21 through 24, 26 and 28. However, we 4 Appeal 2015-001887 Application 12/935,802 concur with Appellant that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9, 10, 13 through 16, 20 and 27. Independent Claim 17 Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 17 is in error as Walters does not teach modifying a way the user is prompted for credentials as claimed. App. Br. 16. Specifically, Appellant asserts that Walters teaches that once a password is expired the user is prompted to enter a replacement password through a GUI. App. Br. 16. Appellant argues the GUI is always presented and is not modified, and, as such, the claim limitation is not met. App. Br. 16; Reply Br 8. The Examiner provides a detailed response to Appellant’s arguments, finding that Walters teaches the prompt for the user to enter a replacement password when the password is expired is different from the prompt for the user to enter the password, and as such teaches the claimed modifying a way the user is prompted for credentials limitation. Answer 4—6. We have reviewed the Examiner’s findings, conclusions, and the evidence cited by the Examiner, and concur with the Examiner. See Answer 4-6. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17. Appellant has not separately identified error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 18, 19, 22 through 24, which depend upon claim 17, and as such we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims also. Dependent claim 20 5 Appeal 2015-001887 Application 12/935,802 Appellant argues the combination of Walters, Ashok and Shenker teach the claim 20 limitation directed to code, which when executed by a processor to ascertain whether a new password in unacceptable as a replacement and transmitting an integer value if the password is unacceptable as the replacement parameter. App Br. 18—19, Reply Br. 10- 12. In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds: Walters teaches determining whether a received password is acceptable or not (Answer 7—8); Shenker teaches transmitting a response including an integer value representing a retry parameter (Answer 8—90; and Ashok teaches not incrementing a lockout counter if an entered password is not accepted (Answer 9—10). Based upon the finding the Examiner considers the disputed limitation of claim 20 to be taught. While we concur with the Examiner’s findings regarding the references individually, as the Appellant argues on page 12 of the Reply Brief, Ashok teaches not incrementing a lockout count if an incorrect password is entered twice. We do not consider the Examiner to have shown that the limitation directed to not changing (incrementing) the counter if new password is unacceptable as a replacement password as recited in claim 20, is taught or suggested by these teachings. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 and we do not sustain the rejection of this claim. Claims 1 and 9 As discussed above, Appellant’s arguments directed to the rejection of claims 1 and 9 present us with a similar issue as that presented with respect to claim 20 (system claim). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a 6 Appeal 2015-001887 Application 12/935,802 device claim 9, is that the claim recites structure that performs the claimed function. Thus, for the reasons discussed above we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9 directed to a server (a device). However, we reach a different conclusion with respect to claim 1, directed to a method. In claim 1, the disputed limitation recites “if the second password is unacceptable transmitting a response ... the integer value being unchanged.†Thus, based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation, the method of claim 1 ends when the password is ascertained to be acceptable and the step of what happens if it is unacceptable is not reached (i.e. the step of transmitting the unchanged integer value is not performed).3 Thus, under the broadest interpretation of the claim, the limitation argued by Appellant to not be taught by the art, is recited in the alternative and not required to shown by the Examiner. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant has not separately identified error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 5 through 8, 26 and 28 which depend upon claim 1, and as such we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims also. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 —2, 5, 6, 8, 17—19, 21— 24 and 26, 28. is affirmed 3 The Board previously has construed similar method steps in this same manner. See, e.g., Ex parte Fleming, Appeal 2014-002849, 2014 WL 7146104 (PTAB Dec. 12, 2014) (expanded panel decision on rehearing), Ex parte Urbanet, Appeal 2011-002606, 2012 WL 4460637 (PTAB Sept. 19, 2012), and Ex parte Katz, Appeal 2010-006083, 2011 WL 514314 (BPAI Jan. 27,2011). 7 Appeal 2015-001887 Application 12/935,802 The decision of the Examiner erred in rejection of claims 9, 10, 13— 16, 20 and 27 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation