Ex Parte Kennedy

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2008

09841008 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PAUL KENNEDY
____________

Appeal 2007-3497
Application 09/841,008
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: March 28, 2008
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LEE E. BARRETT,
and MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims 9 through 25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
We affirm-in-part.
As best representative of the disclosed and claimed invention, we
reproduce independent claim 9 below:
Appeal 2007-3497
Application 09/841,008

9. A method for authenticating users to individual network devices
that are distributed among a plurality of locations, comprising the following
steps:

storing a directory structure at one of said locations, said directory
structure comprising a root node, a first level of nodes below said root node
that are associated with respective organizations to which said network
devices are assigned, and at least one further level of nodes below said first
level that identify users who are authorized to access the network devices
assigned to the organization associated with a parent first-level node and
authentication information for said users;

replicating said directory structure among said plurality of locations;
in response to a request by a user for access to one of said network
devices, determining which organization to which said one device is
assigned and whether said user is identified on a node below the first-level
node associated with the determined organization; and

authenticating said user to said device if the user is so identified.
The following references are relied on by the Examiner:
Aldred US 6,438,549 B1 Aug. 20, 2002
(filing date December 3, 1998)
Pang US 6,446,204 B1 Sep. 3, 2002
(filing Date October 31, 1997)
Byrne US 6,708,170 B1 Mar. 16, 2004
(filing date December 14, 1999)

Claims 9 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness as to claims 9 through 12, 14 through 18, 20
through 23, and 25, the Examiner relies upon Aldred in view of Byrne. In a
second stated rejection, the Examiner adds Pang to this initial combination
of references as to claims 13, 19, and 24.

2
Appeal 2007-3497
Application 09/841,008

Rather than repeat verbatim the positions of the Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (no Reply Brief has been filed) for
Appellant’s positions, and to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as
embellished upon here, we sustain the rejection of claims 16 through 25, but
we reverse the rejection of claims 9 through 15.
At the outset, we observe that the claimed directory structure is set
forth substantially identically in independent claims 9, 16, and 21 on appeal.
The feature of replicating in claim 9 is also recited briefly in independent
claim 21 but is not found in independent claim 16. Correspondingly, claim 9
recites the feature of:
in response to a request by a user for access to one of said
network devices, determining which organization to which said one
device is assigned and whether said user is identified on a node below
the first-level node associated with the determined organization.

This feature utilizes the data structures set forth in the hierarchy of the
directory structure clause including the root node, the first level of nodes and
the at least one further level of nodes in determining which organization to
which one device is assigned and whether a user is identified on a node
below the first-level node. Corresponding features are not found in
independent claims 16 and 21.
It is because of the recitation of this responsive clause at the end of
independent claim 9 on appeal that we reverse the rejection of independent
claim 9 as well as of its dependent claims 10 through 15. Other than the
3
Appeal 2007-3497
Application 09/841,008

Examiner’s correlation of the showings in figures 1, 2, and 7 of Aldred
relating to directory structures, independent claims 16 and 21 do not reflect
further structural distinctions among the data structures and do not utilize the
data structures set forth in the directory structure clause common to each
independent claim on appeal.
Independent claims 16 and 21 reflect essentially data structures per se
in the form of a essentially nameable nodes which are consistent with the
discussion beginning at the bottom of column 3 through at least the top of
column 4 of Aldred which indicates that the various nodes within the
depicted tree structure in figure 2 may be distinguished based upon name.
As such, the actual level names of the nodes, such as organizations, users or
resources, reflect merely an intended use of what was known in the prior art.
According to the teachings at columns 3 and 4 of Aldred, the artisan was
well aware of the ability to label or otherwise name the nodes according to
the intended uses desired. Alternatively, the labels attached to the respective
nodes in the claims reflect nonfunctional descriptive material with which
independent claims 16 and 21 do not recite a use thereof of the data
structures set forth in the directory structure portion of these claims.
Moreover and independently, the arguments presented by Appellant in the
Brief in part appear to argue patentable distinctions based upon the labels
attached to data per se that comprise the claimed directory structure levels in
an effort to distinguish over the corresponding teachings in Aldred.
Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render patentable or nonobvious
an invention that otherwise would have been unpatenatble or obvious. In re

4
Appeal 2007-3497
Application 09/841,008

Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d
1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally
related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the
invention from the prior art in terms of patentability).
Since dependent claim 13 has been rejected under the second stated
rejection where the Examiner further utilizes Pang in addition to Aldred and
Byrne, the Examiner’s positions do not appear to assert that Pang teaches the
features of independent claim 9 on which we base our reversal. Therefore,
Pang does not appear to cure the deficiencies noted with respect to the
combination of Aldred and Byrne.
Since independent claims 16 and 21 do not reflect the patentable
distinguishing characteristic recited in independent claim 9, we sustain the
rejection of them for the reasons set forth earlier. With respect to the argued
features at page 6 of the Brief relative to claims 17 and 22 and 18 and 23
respectively, the common argument is that Aldred does not teach the type of
information associated with the levels within a directory. Within the general
teachings outlined earlier in Aldred and the absence of the claimed use of the
data structures as in claim 9, the artisan is free to characterize or otherwise
name the directory’s levels according to any type or label as discussed
earlier, particularly in view of the general teachings of the artisan’s ability to
do this according to the teachings at columns 3 and 4 of Aldred.
The only arguments presented before us as to the Byrne patent are at
the bottom of page 5 of the Brief. We note that Appellant does not argue
that Byrne is not properly combinable with Aldred within 35 U.S.C. § 103
and does not contest what the Examiner asserts that Byrne teaches. The
5
Appeal 2007-3497
Application 09/841,008

Examiner relies upon the replication teachings mentioned at least at column
2, lines 32 through 37 to the extent claimed and noted in the rejections of the
claims we affirmed. The teachings of Byrne are consistent with Aldred to
the extent they both relate to the so-called LDAP directory access protocol
approaches for searching requests. At a minimum the showings in figure
4A, 4B confirm the general teachings already outlined earlier in this opinion
permitting the user to label or otherwise characterize the information data
structure as desired.
Lastly, Appellant’s arguments with respect to the second stated
rejection at pages 6 and 7 of the Brief are noted. Again, Appellant does not
argue that the additional teachings of Pang are not properly combinable
within 35 U.S.C. § 103 with those of Aldred and Byrne and does not contest
what the Examiner has asserted Pang teaches. Appellant appears to be
rearguing again the directory structure already associated with the first stated
rejection to which we have affirmed the rejection of independent claims 16
and 21 only and not independent claim 9. Thus, the separate rejection of
dependent claims 19 and 24 is affirmed.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
various claims on appeal within 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed-in-part.

6
Appeal 2007-3497
Application 09/841,008

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-IN-PART

pgc

PAUL KENNEDY
1237 OAK STREET
SAN MATEO CA 95129
7