Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

12944023 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/944,023 11/11/2010
49330 7590
DUKEW, YEE
Yee & Associates, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
02/19/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Su Liu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
AUS920100413US1 4915
EXAMINER
HASAN, SYED HAROON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SU LIU and SHUNGUO YAN
Appeal2014-002407
Application 12/944,023
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-002407
Application 12/944,023
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
13-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to user identifier management, specifically,
determining whether a requested user identifier has a minimum degree of
character variation with respect to existing user identifiers in a data
processing system (Spec. i-f 29). Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
13. A computer program product comprising:
a computer readable storage device;
computer readable program code, stored on the computer
readable storage device, for determining whether a first number
of characters in a first user identifier contains a number of
variants of a second number of characters in a second user
identifier in a data source using a policy responsive to receiving
a request to store the first user identifier in the data source
containing a plurality of user identifiers;
computer readable program code, stored on the computer
readable storage device, for rejecting the first user identifier
responsive to a determination that the first number of characters
in the first user identifier contains the number of variants of the
second number of characters in the second user identifier in the
data source using the policy; and
computer readable program code, stored on the computer
readable storage device, for storing the first user identifier in
the plurality of user identifiers responsive to an absence of a
determination that the first number of characters in the first user
identifier contains the number of variants of the second number
2
Appeal2014-002407
Application 12/944,023
of characters in the second user identifier in the data source
using the policy.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Prevent Homo graphic Logins (impersonation), Drupal.org, (October 24,
2012), http://drupal.org/node/950228 (hereinafter "Drupal").
UTR#39: Unicode Security Mechanisms, Unicode Technical Standard #39,
(October 24, 2012), http://web.archive.org/web/20091
026175242/http:/lwww .unicode.org/reports/tr39/ (hereinafter "Unicode").
Live Nation I Terms & Conditions, LiveNation.com, (October 31, 2012),
http://web.archive.org/web/201006182045/http:livenation.com/h/terms.html
(hereinafter "LiveN ation").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 13-15 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Drupal.
Claims 16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drupal and Unicode.
Claims 17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drupal and LiveNation.
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
Appellants contend, inter alia, Drupal does not disclose the claim 13
limitations "determining whether a first number of characters in a first user
3
Appeal2014-002407
Application 12/944,023
identifier contains a number of variants of a second number of characters in
a second user identifier ... responsive to receiving a request to store the first
user identifier" (App. Br. 6-7). Appellants further contend Drupal does not
disclose "storing the first user identifier in the plurality of user identifiers
responsive to an absence of a determination that the first number of
characters in the first user identifier contains the number of variants of the
second number of characters in the second user identifier," as recited in
claim 13 (App. Br. 7). Finally, Appellants contend Drupal discloses neither
"A computer program product comprising: a computer readable storage
device; computer readable program code, stored on the computer readable
storage device", as recited in claim 13, nor "the apparatus-features expressly
recited in Claim 18-such as a bus system, a storage device, and a
processor" (App. Br. 7-8).
We agree with Appellants that Drupal only discloses the idea of an
invention, and not a technical solution. For this reason, Drupal fails to
disclose the physical elements of the claimed invention, including "a
computer readable storage device," as recited in claim 13, and "a bus
system; a storage device ... ; and a processor unit," as recited in claim 18.
Drupal also fails to disclose the specific implementation recited by the claim
13 limitations
and
determining whether a first number of characters in a first user
identifier contains a number of variants of a second number of
characters in a second user identifier in a data source using a policy
responsive to receiving a request to store the first user identifier in the
data source containing a plurality of user identifiers,
storing the first user identifier in the plurality of user identifiers
responsive to an absence of a determination that the first number of
4
Appeal2014-002407
Application 12/944,023
characters in the first user identifier contains the number of variants of
the second number of characters in the second user identifier in the
data source using the policy.
Although Drupal includes comments such as "This is awesome and
seems pretty doable," and "Time estimate: does 20 hours sound
reasonable?" (Drupal 1 ), which evidences the level of ordinary skill in the
art, the Examiner has based the rejection on anticipation, not obviousness.
Accordingly, we make no findings on whether the claims would have been
obvious over Drupal.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 13, independent claim 18 which recites
commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 14 and 15 for similar
reasons.
The Obviousness Rejections
The Examiner has not shown the Unicode and LiveNation references
cure the deficiencies of Drupal discussed above with respect to independent
claims 13 and 18, from which claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 depend. We
therefore must also find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 16, 17, 19,
and 20.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13-
15 and 18.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 16,
17, 19, and 20.
5
Appeal2014-002407
Application 12/944,023
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 13-20
is reversed.
REVERSED
6