Ex Parte Jones

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2018

12176009 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/176,009 07/18/2008 Thomas C. Jones
141746 7590 05/04/2018
ARENT FOX LLP& Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
1717 K Street, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5344
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.
037834.00525/323717-US-NP 1669
EXAMINER
LE,CANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2018 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):
patentdocket@arentfox.com
USDocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS C. JONES
Appeal2017-008636
Application 12/176,009
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JUSTIN BUSCH, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--19, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation).
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008636
Application 12/176,009
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention concerns "differentiated
authentication for accessing groups of compartmentalized computing
resources, as well as accessing each compartmentalized computing
resource[], as displayed on the desktop of an operating system." Spec. ,r 4,
Abstract. 2
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A computer-implemented method for accessing groups of
computing resources, comprising: under control of one or more
computing systems comprising memory and one or more
processors;
organizing one or more computing resources accessible
in a desktop environment into a group, the one or more
computing resources including at least one of a data content, an
application, a network portal, or a device, the organizing based
at least in part on:
a usage pattern associated with user interaction
with the one or more computing resources in the group;
a reliability of the one or more computing
resources; and
performance demands of the one or more
computing resources; and
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed July 18, 2008; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action,
mailed August 30, 2016; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed January 10,
2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed April 6, 2017; and
"Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed May 26, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-008636
Application 12/176,009
providing an authentication policy to associate one or
more authentication inputs with individual actions of a plurality
of actions directed to individual computing resources of the one
or more computing resources within the group, wherein the
plurality of actions include one or more types of individual
actions and individual authentication inputs of the one or more
authentication inputs are based at least in part on the one or
more types of individual actions;
determining that a user initiates a type of individual
action of the one or more types of the individual actions
directed to an individual computing resource of the individual
computing resources within the group;
receiving an authentication input of the one or more
authentication inputs based at least in part on determining that
the user initiates the type of individual action directed to the
individual computing resource;
determining that the authentication input is verified; and
allowing the type of individual action initiated by the
user to be performed by the individual computing resource.
App. Br. 67---68 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence ofunpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Raz et al. US 2002/0138640 Al Sept. 26, 2002
("Raz")
Pesola US 2003/0125057 Al July 3, 2003
Johnson et al. US 2006/0282900 Al Dec. 14, 2006
("Johnson")
Pesonen US 2007/0192840 Al Aug. 16, 2007
Ting US 2008/0034219 Al Feb. 7,2008
Shah et al. US 2008/0059804 Al Mar. 6, 2008
("Shah")
3
Appeal2017-008636
Application 12/176,009
Trossman et al.
("Trossman")
Chang et al.
("Chang")
US 2008/0086731 Al
US 2008/0222719 Al
The Re} ections on Appeal
Apr. 10, 2008
Sept. 11, 2008
(filed Mar. 26, 2008)
Claims 1, 4--6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chang and Raz. Final Act. 7-11.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Chang, Raz, and Trossman. Final Act. 11-12.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Chang, Raz, and Shah. Final Act. 13-14.
Claims 10, 12-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chang, Raz, and Ting. Final Act. 14--21, 23-27.
Claims 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Chang, Raz, Ting, and Shah. Final Act. 21-22, 27-28.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Chang, Raz, Ting, and Trossman. Final Act. 22-23.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Chang, Raz, and Pesola. Final Act. 28-29.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Chang, Raz, Ting, and Pesola. Final Act. 29-30.
Claims 1, 4--6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Pesonen, Johnson, and Raz. Final Act. 30-41,
46-49.
Claims 2, 11, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Pesonen, Johnson, Raz, and Trossman. Final Act. 41--43,
49-50.
4
Appeal2017-008636
Application 12/176,009
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pesonen, Johnson, Raz, and Shah. Final Act. 43--45.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pesonen, Johnson, Raz, and Pesola. Final Act. 50-52.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--19, 21, and 22 in
light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record
before us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellant's
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Chang
and Pesonen teach or suggest organizing computing resources based on
resource reliability as required by independent claims 1, 10, and 18.
The§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12-16,
and 18 Based on Chang as the Primary Reference
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10,
and 18 because "in the cited paragraphs of Chang, there is no discussion of
'organizing based at least in part on ... a reliability of the one or more
computing resources,"' as recited in each claim. App. Br. 11, 21, 32; see
Reply Br. 5-7. More specifically, Appellant asserts that "in Chang,
resources are grouped together with other resources 'having similar
authorization constraints' 'because it is likely, for whatever reason, that the
users of the resource for a particular group need access to perform some or
many actions on some or all of the resources in the group."' App. Br. 11,
21, 32 (quoting Chang ,r,r 23, 53); see Reply Br. 5. Appellant also asserts
that the Examiner "does not discuss how or why the general concept of
'grouping' or grouping with respect to 'similar authorization constraints' as
5
Appeal2017-008636
Application 12/176,009
discussed in Chang renders obvious 'organizing based at least in part on ...
a reliability of the one or more computing resources.'" App. Br. 12, 22, 33.
The Examiner finds that Chang discloses: ( 1) a system for
determining access rights to a resource managed by an application that
includes "a decision module for determining whether to grant the access
rights for performing the action on the resource"; (2) grouping "similarly
constrained types and instances of resources" based on authorization
constraints; and (3) protecting resources by limiting access. Ans. 3 ( citing
Chang ,r,r 10-11, 22-26, 53, Figs. IA, 5); see Final Act. 7, 14, 23-24. The
Examiner explains that "[l]imiting access to the resources provides
assurance that the resource access has been verified by access controls," and
"[t]his verification reads on trusting the data source which reads on reliable."
Ans. 3.
In response, Appellant explains that "reliability" relates to failure
likelihood for computing resources. Reply Br. 6 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 4, 24, 26).
Appellant asserts that an authorization table in Chang associates a user with
a "role" corresponding to a set of permissible actions. Id. at 5 ( citing Chang
,r,r 2, 7). Appellant then contends that: (1) "Chang is devoid in suggesting
that such 'authorization' is to 'trust[] data sources' and/or have the data
sources be 'reliable"'; and (2) Chang contains no "mention of 'reliability'
and/or 'trust."' Id. at 5-6.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Chang
teach or suggest organizing computing resources based on resource
reliability as required by claims 1, 10, and 18. For instance, the Examiner
provides insufficient technical reasoning regarding how protecting resources
6
Appeal2017-008636
Application 12/176,009
by limiting access based on authorization constraints corresponds to resource
reliability. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 10,
and 18 based on Chang as the primary reference.
Claims 4---6, 8, and 9 depend from claim 1; and claims 12-16 depend
from claim 10. For the reasons discussed regarding the independent claims,
we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejections of these dependent claims based on
Chang as the primary reference.
The§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 2, 7, 11, 17, 19, 21,
and 22 Based on Chang as the Primary Reference
Claims 2, 7, and 21 depend from claim 1; claims 11, 17, and 22
depend from claim 10; and claim 19 depends from claim 18. On this record,
the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited references-
Trossman, Shah, Ting, and Pesola----overcome the deficiency in Chang
discussed above for claims 1, 10, and 18. Hence, we do not sustain the
§ 103(a) rejections of these dependent claims based on Chang as the primary
reference.
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12-16,
and 18 Based on Pesonen as the Primary Reference
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10,
and 18 because Pesonen does not teach or suggest "organizing based at least
in part on ... a reliability of the one or more computing resources," as
recited in each claim. See App. Br. 42--44, 48-50, 58---60; Reply Br. 14--16.
In particular, Appellant contends that Pesonen describes: (1) "a secure
element with [the] capability of securely storing sensitive data";
(2) "grouping applications together where each application is associated with
a separate password"; and (3) "grouping data items into a plurality of data
items groups where each group is associated with a separate password."
7
Appeal2017-008636
Application 12/176,009
App. Br. 42--43, 48--49, 58-59 (citing Pesonen ,r,r 5, 7-8, 12, 23); see Reply
Br. 15. Appellant then asserts that the Examiner "has not shown that the
'grouping' of data items or applications teaches or suggests 'organizing
based at least in part on ... a reliability of the one or more computing
resources."' App. Br. 43, 49, 59.
The Examiner finds that Pesonen discloses: (1) applications as
computing resources; (2) grouping applications based on passwords; and
(3) "a user interface arranged to display a first set of resources and, upon
authentication of an approved user identification, to display a second set of
resources." Ans. 18 (citing Pesonen ,r,r 7-8, 11-12) (emphasis omitted); see
Final Act. 31, 35-36, 46. The Examiner explains that "[l]imiting access to
the resources" through password protection "provides assurance that the
resource access has been verified by access controls," and "[t]his verification
reads on trusting the data source which reads on reliable." Ans. 18.
In response, Appellant again explains that "reliability" relates to
failure likelihood for computing resources. Reply Br. 16 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 4,
24, 26). Appellant asserts that "Pesonen does not discuss 'limiting access to
the resources' but rather 'reveal[ing]' the 'existence of the at least one
resource [when] an approved user identification ... is authenticated.'" Id.
at 15 (quoting Pesonen Abstract) (alteration in original). Appellant then
argues that the Examiner wrongly determines that "Pesonen 's
'authentication' is equal to 'trusting the data."' Id. at 16.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Pesonen
teach or suggest organizing computing resources based on resource
reliability as required by claims 1, 10, and 18. For instance, the Examiner
8
Appeal2017-008636
Application 12/176,009
provides insufficient technical reasoning regarding how password protecting
resources corresponds to resource reliability. Hence, we do not sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 10, and 18 based on Pesonen as the primary
reference.
Claims 4---6, 8, and 9 depend from claim 1; and claims 12-16 depend
from claim 10. For the reasons discussed regarding the independent claims,
we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims based on
Pesonen as the primary reference.
The§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 2, 7, 11, 17, 19, 21,
and 22 Based on Pesonen as the Primary Reference
Claims 2, 7, and 21 depend from claim 1; claims 11, 17, and 22
depend from claim 10; and claim 19 depends from claim 18. On this record,
the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited references-
Trossman, Shah, and Pesola----overcome the deficiency in Pesonen discussed
above for claims 1, 10, and 18. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103(a)
rejections of these dependent claims based on Pesonen as the primary
reference.
Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to
claims 1, 2, 4--19, 21, and 22, we need not address Appellant's other
arguments regarding Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy,
742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative
agency may render a decision based on "a single dispositive issue").
9
Appeal2017-008636
Application 12/176,009
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--19, 21,
and 22.
REVERSED
10