Ex Parte Krishnan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

13611022 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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.
13/611,022 09/12/2012 Parameshwaran Krishnan 512069-US-NP/AVA044PA 3414
136582 7590 03/22/2017
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
EXAMINER
RAHIM, MONJUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2017 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):
pto @ sspatlaw. com
pair_avaya@ firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PARAMESHWARAN KRISHNAN and NAVJOT SINGH
Appeal 2016-008069
Application 13/611,0221
Technology Center 2400
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—9 and 11—21. Claim 10 was
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The disclosed invention relates generally to data protection in mobile
devices. Spec 12. Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method to provide geographic location-based
levels of data protection, comprising:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. (Appeal
Brief, filed November 22, 2015 (“App. Br.”) 4).
Appeal 2016-008069
Application 13/611,022
receiving, by a receiver, login credentials of a user of a
mobile device;
authenticating, by use of a policy server, a credentials-based
level of data access as configured by a policy;
retrieving, by a geo-location module, a geographic location
of the mobile device;
determining, by use of the policy server, a geographic
location-based level of data access as configured by the policy;
and
granting sensitive data access based upon a more restrictive
limitation of the credentials-based level of data access and the
geographic location-based level of data access.
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 10, 11, 13—15,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Facemire et al. (U.S.
2010/0317323 Al, published December 16, 2010, “Facemire”) and Scheidt
et al. (U.S. 2005/0235148 Al, published October 20, 2005, “Scheidt”);
claims 2-4, 12, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Facemire, Scheidt, and Chen et al. (U.S. 2013/0297402 Al, published
November 7, 2013, “Chen”); and claims 5—9 and 17—19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Facemire, Scheidt, and Carney et al. (U.S.
2008/0238670 Al, published October 2, 2008, “Carney”).
ANAFYSIS
Claim 1 recites authenticating a user for a credentials-based level of
data access, determining for the user a geographic location-based level of
data based on a geographic location and granting data access based upon a
more restrictive limitation of the credentials-based level of data access and
the geographic location-based level of data access. We agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Facemire and Scheidt at least suggests
these features. See e.g., Final Act. 4—10.
2
Appeal 2016-008069
Application 13/611,022
For example, as the Examiner indicates, Facemire, at least, discloses
authentication of a user including identifying a “data access device” by
identifying “a digital signature that securely identifies the data access
device” (i.e., authenticating a user for a credentials-based level of data
access) and also determining a “first location” of a device and “releas[ing]
the [requested] personal data” based on the location of the “first location”
(i.e., determining a geographic location-based level of data based on a
geographic location). Final Act. 4—5; Facemire Tfl[ 56, 74.
Appellants argue that Scheidt fails to disclose or suggest a “more
restrictive limitation,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8—9. Claim 1 recites
granting data access based upon “a more restrictive limitation of the
credentials-based level of data access and the geographic location-based
level of data access.” Hence, claim 1 requires that a “more restrictive
limitation” includes credentials-based and location-based levels of data
access. As the Examiner points out and as discussed above, Facemire
discloses both the credentials-based and location based levels of data access.
Appellants do not explain a meaningful difference between the credentials-
based and geographic location-based levels of data access of Facemire and
the credentials-based and geographic location-based levels of data access
(i.e., a “more restrictive limitation”), as recited in claim 1. In both cases,
data access is determined based on credentials and geographic location.
Appellants argue that Scheidt fails to disclose or suggest “a two-level
authentication process for granting data access to the user.” App. Br. 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Even assuming Appellants
to be correct that Scheidt fails to disclose a two-level authentication process,
Appellants do not demonstrate sufficiently that claim 1, for example, recites
a “two-level authentication process” and, even assuming that claim 1 recites
3
Appeal 2016-008069
Application 13/611,022
a “two-level authentication process,” Appellants do not demonstrate
persuasively that Facemire also fails to disclose this feature. As previously
discussed, Facemire discloses this feature.
Appellants argue that Facemire fails to disclose or suggest “that the
geographic information is used as a parameter for determining the level of
access to system” because according to Appellants, Facemire “is directed to
an entirely different objective.” App. Br. 10-11. We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument because Appellants do not demonstrate persuasively a
specific “objective,” as recited in claim 1 that Facemire supposedly fails to
disclose.
Appellant does not provide additional arguments in support of the
other claims subject to appeal or additional arguments pertaining to Chen
and Carney. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—9 and
11-21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9 and 11—21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4