Ex Parte Ibrahim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2015

11830605 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte WAEL M. IBRAHIM
____________________

Appeal 2013-000884
Application 11/830,605
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1–3, 5–15, 21, and 22. Claims 4 and 16–20 have been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

According to Appellant, the claims are directed to using an
authentication ticket to initialize a computer. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
Appeal 2013-000884
Application 11/830,605

2
1. A method, comprising:

authenticating a wireless communication device;

receiving an authentication ticket from a server if said
wireless communication device is successfully
authenticated; and

providing said authentication ticket by said wireless
communication device to a computer to enable the
computer to complete an initialization process, wherein
the computer includes computer executable instructions
stored in a non-transitory medium which when executed
by a processor allow the computer to authenticate the
authenticating ticket.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Watanabe
Chen
Terao
Balfanz
Han
Kirkup
Biswas
US 2002/0026574 A1
US 6,484,023 B1
US 6,690,794 B1
US 2005/0287985 A1
US 2005/0289357 A1
US 2006/0041746 A1
US 7,032,026 B1
Feb. 28, 2002
Nov. 19, 2002
Feb. 10, 2004
Dec. 29, 2005
Dec. 29, 2005
Feb. 23, 2006
Apr. 18, 2006
Waterson US 2006/0101128 A1 May 11, 2006

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 9–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Balfanz and Han. Ans. 5–8.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Balfanz, Han, and Chen. Ans. 9.
Appeal 2013-000884
Application 11/830,605

3
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Balfanz, Han, and Kirkup. Ans. 9–10.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Balfanz, Han, Kirkup, and Terao. Ans. 10–11.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Balfanz, Han, Kirkup, and Biswas. Ans. 11–12.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Balfanz, Han, and Watanabe. Ans. 12–13.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Balfanz, Han, and Waterson. Ans. 13–14.

We have only considered those arguments 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)(iv)(2012).

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 2, and 9–15
Appellant asserts the invention as recited in independent claims 1 and
11, is not obvious over Balfanz and Han. Br. 8–9.
Thus, the issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Balfanz
and Han teaches or suggests “providing said authentication ticket . . . to a
computer to enable the computer to complete an initialization process,
wherein the computer includes computer executable instructions stored in a
Appeal 2013-000884
Application 11/830,605

4
non-transitory medium which when executed by a processor allow the
computer to authenticate the authenticating ticket,” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues Han teaches an authentication mode is checked to
determine which of first and second authentication modes — reboot or
shutdown mode — was selected by a user prior to ending the previous
operating session. Br. 9. Thus, Appellant contends, determining whether a
reboot or shutdown mode was selected by a user does not teach the disputed
limitation of enabling the computer to complete an initialization process and
authenticate the authenticating ticket. Id. Finally, Appellant asserts the
combination of the teachings of Balfanz and Han, therefore, does not teach
or at least suggest the invention recited in claims 1 and 11. Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Specifically, as set
forth by the Examiner, Han teaches when rebooting is performed, the
Operating System (OS) driver 310 requests the Basic Input/Output System
(BIOS) driver to store authentication mode information. Final Rej. 3; Han,
¶ 4, Fig. 1, element S101. Han additionally teaches a module, a software or
hardware component, residing on an addressable storage medium and
configured to execute on a processor(s). Han, ¶ 3. Therefore, we determine
Han teaches “wherein the computer includes computer executable
instructions stored in a non-transitory medium which when executed by a
processor allow the computer” to perform a process. Moreover, we are
persuaded by the Examiner that Balfanz teaches a wireless communication
device providing an authentication ticket to a computer. Balfanz teaches
portable security token 102 (wireless communication device) provides a
Appeal 2013-000884
Application 11/830,605

5
ticket to target device 104 (computer). Balfanz, Fig. 2; ¶¶ 45, 53, 54. Once
the ticket is formed, signed, and sent to target device 104, target device 104
presents the ticket to CA 106 to prove target device 104 is authorized to
receive a credential from CA 106. Id. We, therefore, agree Balfanz teaches
the target device (computer) sends the ticket to the CA (server), to enable the
CA to verify the ticket (authenticate the authenticating ticket). Balfanz,
¶ 58, Fig. 4, step 406. Thus, we determine the ticket is provided to the target
device to complete an initialization process. Accordingly, we find Balfanz
teaches “providing said authentication ticket by said wireless
communication device to a computer to complete an initialization process,”
as recited in claim 1.
Thus, we find the combination of Balfanz and Han teaches “wherein
the computer includes computer executable instructions stored in a non-
transitory medium which when executed by a processor allow the computer
to authenticate the authenticating ticket,” as recited in claim 1 and
commensurately recited in claim 11.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Balfanz and Han teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in independent claims 1 and 11. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5–10, 12–
15, 21, and 22, not separately argued (Br. 10–11), fall with their respective
independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claims 1–3, 5–
15, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2013-000884
Application 11/830,605

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5–15, 21, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls