Ex Parte LE SAINT

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2017

13626015 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 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.
13/626,015 09/25/2012 Eric F. LE SAINT AIM-205CON2 2239
101221 7590 05/25/2017
Muirhead and Satumelli, LLC
200 Friberg Parkway, Suite 1001
Wes thorough, MA 01581
EXAMINER
AGWUMEZIE, CHINEDU CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2017 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 ERIC F. LE SAINT
Appeal 2015-007797
Application 13/626,015
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and CYNTHIA L.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 43—52 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2015-007797
Application 13/626,015
THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a privilege delegation
system (Spec. 2, lines 10-12). Claim 43, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
43. A non-transitory computer-readable medium, containing
software that transfers a cryptographic key and its usage policies from
a security token to at least a first data processing unit, the software
comprising:
executable code that performs mutual authentication between
the security token and the first data processing unit by exchanging
data therebetween;
executable code that transfers the key from the security token to
a first data processing unit following performing mutual
authentication; and
executable code that applies the key in accordance with the
usage policies, wherein the key enables access to at least one resource
by the first data processing unit subject to requirements prescribed in
the usage policies only if the key is present in the first data processing
unit and verified by at least a second data processing unit and wherein
the key facilitates the at least first data processing unit to perform a
function selected from the group consisting of: surrogate operations
for the security token, terminal activation, personalization of an
intelligent device, access to the at least one resource, and loyalty
credit management.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 43—52, are rejected under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness type double patenting.
2. Claims 43, 45^47, and 50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Brown US 6,678,733 Bl, issued Jan. 13, 2004.
2
Appeal 2015-007797
Application 13/626,015
3. Claims 44, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brown and Bialick US 2005/0262553 Al, published
Nov. 24, 2005.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.
ANALYSIS
Rejection under Obviousness Type Double Patenting
The Appellant has not provided any arguments in regard to the
rejection made under obviousness type double patenting and this rejection is
therefore accordingly summarily affirmed.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 103(a)
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 43 is improper
because the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for executable
code that
transfers the key from the security token to a first data processing unit
following performing mutual authentication.... wherein the key
enables access to at least one resource by the first data processing
unit.
(App. Br. 8, see also Reply Br. 4).
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal 2015-007797
Application 13/626,015
In contrast, the Examiner has asserted that this claim limitation is
shown by Brown at col. 3:5—29 (Ans. 5, 6, 9, 10).
We agree with the Appellant. The claim limitation at issue requires
that that the executable code “transfers the key from the security token to a
first data processing unit following performing mutual authentication”.
Brown at col. 3:5—29 discloses that the client first authenticates themselves
by providing information to a GS (gateway server) which encrypts a ticket
with an encryption key and transmits the encrypted ticket to the client. The
client then sends this ticket to a “walled garden” to request access. There is
no disclosure that the “ticket” transfers the key to the “walled garden” as the
ticket while encrypted using the key, has not been specifically shown to
include the key. Further, there is no specific disclosure of a “mutual
authentication” at the cited portion of Brown as it appears that only the
“walled garden” performs the authentication and the user in transferring the
ticket does not perform an authentication. The rejection of record is
mapping Brown’s Gateway Server (GS) to the recited security token (see
Ans. 10) without any findings to support such a mapping. Thus, the
citations to Brown at col. 3:5—29 fail to disclose the argued claim limitation.
The citations to Brown at col. 11:59—12:22 fail to disclose this as well.
For these above reasons, the rejection of claim 43 and its dependent
claims is not sustained.
CONCFUSIONS OF FAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under judicially created doctrine of obviousness type
double patenting as listed in the Rejections section above.
4
Appeal 2015-007797
Application 13/626,015
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
shown in the Rejection section above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 43—52 is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5