Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 28, 2014

11686167 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/686,167 03/14/2007 Bing-Hung Lin 2006-0552 / 24061.834 5894
42717 7590 05/29/2014
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
KANAAN, SIMON P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2432
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2014 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 BING-HUNG LIN, JEFFREY LIOU, and KUO-RUNG HSIAO
____________

Appeal 2012-000402
Application 11/686,167
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-000402
Application 11/686,167

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non-
final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A method of servicing a service request in a network
maintained by an organization and comprising a plurality of
servers, the method comprising:
responsive to an initial request for service by a client via a
service broker, providing to the client through the service broker a
response identifying an available one of the servers; and
connecting the client directly to the available server, the
available server authenticating the client without involvement
of the service broker; and
the client thereafter sending successive requests for service
directly to the available server without involvement of the service
broker.

Prior Art
Pang US 6,446,204 B1 Sep. 3, 2002
Giles US 2002/0169961 A1 Nov. 14, 2002
Pham US 2003/0105830 A1 Jun. 5, 2003

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pang and Giles.
Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Pang, Giles, and Pham.

Appeal 2012-000402
Application 11/686,167

3
ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20
Appellants contend the multiple authentication engines of Pang are on
a single server, rather than a plurality of servers as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 3. Appellants conclude Pang does not teach “responsive to an
initial request . . . providing to the client through the service broker a
response identifying an available one of the [plurality of] servers” as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 3-4. The Examiner finds Pang teaches distributing
authentication engines of the authentication server. Ans. 9. The Examiner
concludes Pang teaches a plurality of authentication servers. Id.
Pang teaches
the authentication server is distributed. . . . [T]he various
components, such as the authentication engine and the
authentication host, can reside on any combination of different
machines (i.e. can be distributed). . . . The distributed nature of
the present invention makes it possible to strategically add
machines where additional capability is most needed. For
example, if additional authentication capability is needed, a
machine can be added to run an additional authentication
engine.
Col. 25, ll. 6-20. According to Appellants, this section of Pang teaches
distributing a single server across several machines. Reply Br. 1-2. We
disagree. Appellants have not provided a definition of “a plurality of
servers” that excludes multiple machines, each running a separate
authentication engine, as taught by Pang. In addition, Pang explicitly
teaches “a plurality of authentication servers” in column 30, lines 42-48.
We are not persuaded that the letter “s” in “servers” as recited in claim 1
distinguishes the claim from the prior art. We agree with the Examiner that
Pang teaches “responsive to an initial request . . . providing to the client
Appeal 2012-000402
Application 11/686,167

4
through the service broker a response identifying an available one of the
[plurality of] servers” within the meaning of claim 1.
Appellants further contend the origin web server of Giles, rather than
the semi-trusted web server (corresponding to the claimed “available
server”), authenticates the client. Appellants conclude Giles does not teach
“the available server authenticating the client” as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 4. However, the Examiner relies on Pang to teach “the available server
authenticating the client.” Ans. 5. The Examiner relies on Giles to teach a
service broker 310 connecting the client 305 directly to another server 300,
and the client 305 thereafter sending successive requests for service directly
to the other server 300 without involvement of the service broker 310. Ans.
5-6; see Giles Figs. 3 and 8.
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument to show that modifying the authentication
server of Pang to receive successive requests for service directly from the
client without involvement of the service broker as taught by Giles was
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419).
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11,
13-16, 18, and 20, which fall with claim 1.

Appeal 2012-000402
Application 11/686,167

5
Section 103 rejection of claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19, which fall with claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pang and Giles is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Pang, Giles, and Pham 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tj