11425738 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2012)

Ex Parte Kohli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 7, 2012

11425738 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2012)

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. 11/425,738 06/22/2006 Pooja Kohli RSW920060041US1 9725 46320 7590 12/07/2012 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER PAPPAS, PETER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2444 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/07/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte POOJA KOHLI and PAUL F. McMAHAN ____________________ Appeal 2010-005836 Application 11/425,738 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005836 Application 11/425,738 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention relates to “Internet security, and more specifically relates to a methodology for maintaining and tracking user sessions using cookie updation.” Spec. 1 § Field of the Invention [0001]. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A method for maintaining a session, comprising: periodically updating a value in a session cookie in a web browser using a program implemented in a source code of a web page; stopping the updating of the value when a user navigates away from the web page; and automatically logging the user out of the web page if the value is determined to be invalid. References Becker US 6,557,038 B1 Apr. 29, 2003 Miller US 2003/0158949 A1 Aug. 21, 2003 (Miller ‘949) Miller US 2005/0095571 A1 May 5, 2005 (Miller ‘571) Appeal 2010-005836 Application 11/425,738 3 Rejections Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Becker, Miller ‘949, and Miller ‘571. We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs, have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2009). ISSUE 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-21 Appellants argue their invention is not rendered obvious by Becker, Miller ‘949, and Miller ‘571 because the Examiner’s construction of “session cookie” is too broad. App. Br. 8. Therefore, Appellants conclude that Miller ‘571 does not teach “periodically updating a value in a session cookie in a web browser.” (Emphasis added). Issue: Has the Examiner erred in construing “session cookie” and thus erred in determining that Becker, in combination with Miller ‘949 and Miller ‘571, teaches “periodically updating a value in [a/the] session cookie in a web browser,” as claimed in independent claims 1, 9, 10, and 18? ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the well-understood meaning of “session cookie” is consistent with Appellants’ own usage. App. Br. 6. While acknowledging that the Examiner has construed “session cookie” properly Appeal 2010-005836 Application 11/425,738 4 with respect to Becker and Miller ‘949, Appellants argue that the Examiner has construed “session cookie” to be just a “cookie” with respect to Miller ‘571. Id. at 6-7. Finally, Appellants conclude that, because “session cookies are known to be maintained in the server and not in the client, the differences between the species ‘session cookie’ and the genus ‘cookie’ are vast and not merely obvious.” App. Br. 8. We do not agree with Appellants’ conclusion (without persuasive supporting evidence) that session cookies are known to be maintained in the server. On the contrary, we agree with the Examiner that Miller ‘571 teaches a “session cookie,” as recited in Appellants’ claims. Ans. 7-8. Miller ‘571 specifically defines cookies as existing “during a client/server session.” Id. That is, a “session cookie” encompasses a cookie that exists during a session, as described by Miller ‘571. Moreover, Miller ‘571 indicates that the cookie “may even be stored on disk.” Ans. 8. Because we find that Miller ‘571 teaches a session cookie, we need not address Appellants’ other arguments, which are based on an interpretation of Miller ‘571 that is inconsistent with our findings. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Becker, Miller ‘949, and Miller ‘571 teaches or suggests the invention as recited in independent claims 1, 9, 10, and 18, as well as claims 2-8, 11-17, and 19-21, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness. Appeal 2010-005836 Application 11/425,738 5 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious 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)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED tj