Ex Parte Hayward

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 24, 2011

09661589 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BLAKE EARL HAYWARD
____________________

Appeal 2009-007269
Application 09/661,589
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 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 2009-007269
Application 09/661,589

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 29,
31-34, and 36-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002). Claims 1-28, 30 and 35
have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to providing online
verification and fraud prevention services for business clients and individual
users (Spec. 1).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 29 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
29. A system for fraud prevention by authenticating a user at a first
Internet site, comprising:

an Internet-connected verification server for performing the
authentication; and

an Internet-connected appliance operable by the user for
sending a request for authentication to the first Internet site;

wherein the user specifies a second and third Internet site not
associated with the first Internet site and known to the user as capable
of accepting the user’s username-password pair included in the
request for authentication and a username-password pair for the user,
and the server, in response to the request, causes automatic navigation
to the second and third sites and attempts a login on behalf of the user
with the username-password pair, successful login at the second and
third sites allowing authentication of the user at the first Internet site.

Appeal 2009-007269
Application 09/661,589

3
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hunt US 6,496,855 B1 Dec. 17, 2002

Claims 29, 31-34, and 36-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hunt.

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in concluding that Hunt would have suggested
an Internet-connected appliance for “sending a request for authentication to
the first Internet site” wherein the server, “in response to the request, causes
automatic navigation to the second and third sites” and “successful login at
the second and third sites allowing authentication of the user at the first
Internet site” (claim 29)? In particular, the issue turns on whether Hunt
would have suggested causing automatic navigation to other sites in
response to a request to authenticate at a first site, wherein successful login
at the other sites allows authentication at the first site.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Hunt
1. Hunt provides a Registration Agent Site (RAS) which presents an
intermediary between sites and Internet users that acts as a single
source of data entry, user name and password for users, wherein users
Appeal 2009-007269
Application 09/661,589

4
can register with new sites automatically and move between registered
sites via a single interface (col. 3, ll. 31-36).
2. For managing the registration, the method comprises gathering
registration data for a service computer and storing the registration
data on a registration agent computer, and in response to a request
from a user to the registration agent computer to register the user with
the service computer, transmitting registration information from the
registration agent computer to the service computer (col. 9, l. 52 to
col. 10, l. 6).
3. In particular, the user enters the username and password for the RAS
and selects the option that says that the user is already a member of
the referring site, wherein a new page appears with a request for the
user’s current login details for the referred site and the user’s RAS
home page then appears showing the referring site as a registered site
(col. 8, l. 63 to col. 9, l. 4).

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that “the teachings of Hunt provided by the
Examiner fails to read on a fraud prevention system, as claimed” because
“Hunt provides a system to prevent a user from receiving spam in the email
and provides easy log-in at a plurality of a user’s registered Web sites”
(App. Br. 7). Further, Appellant argues that “Hunt also fails to teach using
successful log-in at the second and third sites allowing authentication at
the first site” (id. at 9) because there is no suggestion of “verification at the
first site depending upon successful verification of the same user at the other
two sites” (id. at 10).
Appeal 2009-007269
Application 09/661,589

5
The Examiner finds that “Hunt clearly teaches a fraud prevention
system” since the cited portions of Hunt “teach verifying a user identity and
password” wherein Hunts requires “login before the RAS can transfer site
login details” (Ans. 6). The Examiner further finds that “[t]he [claimed] first
Internet site is the targeted web site [in Hunt] that the user wishes to register
or be authenticated at” and “[t]he second and third sites are the sites that
confirm the identity such as a RAS site” (id. at 7). Thus, according to the
Examiner, “[t]he Hunt reference’s teachings render the claim limitation
unpatentable… because the Hunt reference shows a user logs into a first site,
the RAS system, and then registers or logs into other sites specified by the
user” (id.).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellant that
there is no suggestion of “verification at the first site depending upon
successful verification of the same user at the other two sites” (App. Br. 10).
That is, we cannot find any teaching or suggestion in the portions of Hunt
cited by the Examiner of an Internet-connected appliance for “sending a
request for authentication to the first Internet site” wherein the server, “in
response to the request, causes automatic navigation to the second and third
sites” and “successful login at the second and third sites allowing
authentication of the user at the first Internet site” as required by claim 29.
Hunt discloses a RAS which acts as a single source of data entry for
user name and password, wherein users can register with new sites
automatically and move between registered sites via a single interface (FF
1). In Hunt, registration data for a service computer is gathered and stored
on the RAS, and in response to a request from a user to the RAS to register
Appeal 2009-007269
Application 09/661,589

6
the user with the service computer, registration information is transmitted
from the RAS to the service computer (FF 2-3).
Though we agree with the Examiner that Hunt teaches “a fraud
prevention system” since Hunt teaches “verifying a user identity and
password” (Ans. 6), we find that the portions of Hunt referenced by the
Examiner do not suggest any teaching of automatic navigation to other sites
in response to a request to authenticate at a first site, wherein successful
login at the other sites allows authentication at the first site. Thus, even if
we were to interpret that “[t]he [claimed] first Internet site is the targeted
web site [in Hunt] that the user wishes to register or be authenticated at” and
“[t]he second and third sites are the sites that confirm the identity such as a
RAS site” as set forth by the Examiner (id. at 7), there is no suggestion of
automatic navigation to second and third sites in response to a request to
authenticate at a first site, or authentication at the first site based on
successful login at the second and third sites.
As such, we will reverse the rejection of representative claim 29 and
claims 31-34 and 36-38 falling therewith.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in holding claims 29,
31-34, and 36-38 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we
have not sustained the Examiner’s rejection with respect to any claim on
appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 29, 31-34, and
36-38 is reversed.

Appeal 2009-007269
Application 09/661,589

7
REVERSED

llw

CENTRAL COAST PATENT AGENCY, INC
3 HANGAR WAY SUITE D
WATSONVILLE, CA 95076