Ex Parte Leckey et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201713993110 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/993,110 06/11/2013 Alexander Leckey ITL.2470US (P38041US) 8500 47795 7590 03/01/2017 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. 1616 S. VOSS RD., SUITE 750 HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631 EXAMINER TRAORE, FATOUMATA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2436 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2017 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): tphpto@tphm.com Inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALEXANDER LECKEY and EDWARD SHOGULIN1 Appeal 2016-007749 Application 13/993,110 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—11, 13, 15, 16, and 18—23. Claims 12, 14, and 17 have been canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-007749 Application 13/993,110 THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “automated password management.” Spec., Title. According to the Specification, when a password is viewed on a user interface, the activity may be logged in an audit database. Spec. 2—3. An audit service may remotely change the password “if the time that has passed since the viewing surpasses a threshold (e.g., two hours).” Id. at 3,11. 27—28. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. An article comprising a non-transient machine-accessible storage medium including instructions that when executed enable a system to: determine a first plurality of processor-based systems whose respective first password credentials were viewed in a first preceding time period; and from an additional processor-based system remotely located from the first plurality of systems, remotely change the respective first password credentials for each of the first plurality of systems based on determining the first password credentials were viewed in the first preceding time period. REFERENCES AND REJECTION The following rejection made by the Examiner to the claims on appeal and the prior art relied upon in the rejection made is: Claims 1—11, 13, 15, 16, and 18—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bingell et al. (US 2013/0014236 Al; published Jan. 10, 2013 (filed July 5, 2011)) (“Bingell”) and Nettleton (US 2011/0265160 Al; published Oct. 27, 2011 (PCT filed Sept. 23, 2008)). Final Act. 4—9. 2 Appeal 2016-007749 Application 13/993,110 ANALYSIS2 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner has erred. Br. 7—10. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions regarding the pending claims and, in connection therewith, adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—9), and as set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—8). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below. Claims 1—6, 9—11, 13, 15, 16, and 18—23 Appellants contend the Examiner’s reliance on Nettleton as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation enabling a system to “determine a first plurality of processor-based systems whose respective first password credentials were viewed in a first preceding time period,” as recited in claim 1, is erroneous. Br. 7—8. Appellants assert paragraph 46 of Nettleton teaches a mother node determines the display of a password for 120 seconds. Br. 7. Appellants argue Nettleton’s determination to display the password is made before the password is viewed, not after the password is viewed, as required by claim 1. Br. 7. Appellants further argue paragraphs 70, 74, and 75 of Nettleton do not teach a viewing of a password. Br. 7—8. 2 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed November 25, 2015); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 21, 2015); and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed on June 6, 2016). 3 Appeal 2016-007749 Application 13/993,110 We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because Appellants’ contentions are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner relies on the combination of Bingell and Nettleton in rejecting claim 1. Final Act. 4—5. In particular, the Examiner relies on Bingell to teach determining a set of passwords associated with a set of rules. Final Act. 2, 4 (citing Bingell 28, 29, 58, 73). Further, the Examiner finds Nettleton teaches passwords “viewed in a first preceding time period.” Final Act. 2, 4 (citing Nettleton H 46, 70, 74, 75). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own. Paragraph 46 of Nettleton, as relied upon by the Examiner, teaches: [Ajfter the authorized user is authenticated and requests a password for a child node 120, the authorized user has a limited amount of time to view the password. For example, and not limitation, upon request from the authorized user, the mother node 110 can display the password for approximately 120 seconds, or some other predetermined period. . . . After the authorized user obtains the desired child node 120 password, the authorized user can connect to the selected child node by logging into the target account 420 of the selected child node 120. Nettleton, in disclosing an authorized user obtaining a desired child node (120) password after a mother node (110) displays the desired child node (120) password for 120 seconds, teaches or suggests the desired child node (120) password was viewed during the 120 seconds, i.e., display and use of the displayed password suggests the password was viewed. Thus, the Examiner relies on Nettleton, in combination with Bingell, for including Nettleton’s password viewing in a first preceding time period with Bingell’s set of rules that determine a set of passwords. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner in finding the combination of Bingell and Nettleton teaches or 4 Appeal 2016-007749 Application 13/993,110 suggests determining a first plurality of processor-based systems whose respective first password credentials were viewed in a first preceding time period as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 15 contain similar limitations and are argued together with claim 1. See Br. 8. Thus, for the same reasons as claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 15. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2—6, 9, 11, 13, 16, and 18—23, which are not argued separately with particularity. See Br. 7—10. Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites “remotely insert a password record into the additional one of the plurality of first systems.” Appellants argue paragraphs 11, 46, 66, and 67 of Nettleton do not teach or suggest inserting a password record into a child node. Br. 8. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds paragraph 6 of Nettleton teaches a “child node stores the new password locally and securely for authenticating users of the child node.” Ans. 6. Appellants fail to address these findings or otherwise provide sufficient evidence or reasoning that rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding Nettleton’s disclosure from paragraph 6 of a child node storing a password. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient substantive rebuttal, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that paragraph 6 of Nettleton teaches or suggests remotely inserting a password record into a child node (the claimed “additional one of the plurality of first systems”). 5 Appeal 2016-007749 Application 13/993,110 Claim 7 further recites “wherein the additional one of the plurality of first systems had no preexisting password record associated with the password credential management account.” Appellants argue paragraphs 11, 46, 66, and 67 of Nettleton, relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting claim 7, do not address storing a password record in the child nodes of Nettleton. Br. 8. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Nettleton teaches new child node initialization during which a new password is received in the child node from the mother node and stored in the client node. Ans. 6—7 (citing Nettleton || 6, 67, 70, 71). Appellants fail to address these findings or otherwise provide sufficient evidence or reasoning that rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding Nettleton’s disclosure of new child node initialization. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient substantive rebuttal, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the new child node initialization discussed in Nettleton’s paragraphs 6, 67, 70, and 71 of Nettleton teach or suggest wherein an additional child node (the claimed “one of the plurality of first systems”) had no preexisting password record associated with the password credential management account of claim 7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Claim 8 Appellants contend paragraph 46 of Nettleton does not “determine an additional one of the first plurality of systems whose respective first password credentials have not been changed within an expired threshold time period that has transpired since the password credentials were viewed,” 6 Appeal 2016-007749 Application 13/993,110 as recited in claim 8. Appellants argue Nettleton’s determination to display the password for 120 seconds is made before the password is displayed for 120 seconds, not within the 120 seconds. Br. 9 (citing Nettleton 146). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Appellants’ contentions are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. The Examiner finds Bingell teaches changing a password after a period of time has elapsed since the password was last changed or created. Ans. 7—8 (citing Bingell Tflf 30—32, 58, 73). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own. Further, as discussed supra, the Examiner relies on Nettleton’s password viewing in a first preceding time period. See Final Act. 2, 4 (citing Nettleton 146). Appellants fail to address these findings or otherwise provide sufficient evidence or reasoning that rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding Bingell’s disclosure of periodic password changing in combination with Nettleton’s password viewing. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient substantive rebuttal, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Bingell and Nettleton teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. 7 Appeal 2016-007749 Application 13/993,110 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—11, 13, 15, 16, and 18—23. 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation