Ex Parte Moeller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12450208 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/450,208 12/08/2010
134145 7590
Staas & Halsey LLP
1201 New York Ave., NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
02/18/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wolf-Dietrich Moeller
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.
2454.1116 3718
EXAMINER
RAHMAN, SHAWNCHOY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
ptomail@s-n-h.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOLF-DIETRICH MOELLER, MURUGARAJ SHANMUGAM
and HANNES TSCHOFENIG
Appeal2013-003085
Application 12/450,208
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 15-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to provision of services for terminal
devices. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 15 is exemplary:
15. A method for provision of services for terminal devices, each of
which has a trusted platform module, comprising:
Appeal2014-003085
Application 12/450,208
configuring, by a network operator in a trusted platform module of a
terminal device, an access control list containing credentials associated with
different servers for different services; and
sending, by the trusted platform module of the terminal device, a
service request with an identification assertion, signed by a configurable
credential, to a server for access to the services thereof, if the configurable
credential exists as an entry in the access control list.
References and Rejections
Claims 15-18, 23-24, 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Plaquin (US 200/0265598 Al; published Nov. 23,
2006) and Lester (US 2008/0046983 Al; published Feb. 21, 2008).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Plaquin, Lester, and Roskind (US 7,765,584 B2; issued July 27, 2010).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Plaquin; Lester; and Pollari (US 2004/0267645 Al; published Dec. 30;
2004).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Plaquin, Lester, and Birger (US 2009/0006850 Al; published Jan. 1,
2009.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Plaquin, Lester, and Patrick (US 2005/0081055 Al; published Apr. 14,
2005).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Plaquin, Lester, and Gonzalez (US 2007/0016941 Al; published Jan.
18, 2007).
2
Appeal2014-003085
Application 12/450,208
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding Plaquin and Lester collectively teach "configuring, by a network
operator in a trusted platform module of a terminal device, an access control
list containing credentials associated with different servers for different
services," as recited in independent claim 15 (emphases added). 1
The Examiner maps Lester's authentication service 106 to the claimed
network operator, and Lester's common credential store 122 to the claimed
access control list. See Ans. 3. However, the Examiner does not point to
any teaching of configuring Lester's common credential store 122 by the
authentication service 106, as required by the claim. See Ans. 3-5. The
Examiner cites the following Lester excerpts that include the key word
"configured," but none of the excerpts discusses configuring Lester's
common credential store 122, let alone configuring Lester's common
credential store 122 by the authentication service 106:
"Authentication service 106 and web service providers 114(m)
may also be implemented as computing devices, for instance,
each may be implemented via one or more servers configured
with respective processors and memories."; see [i-f 0025]: "One
or more of service providers 114(m) may be configured as a
provider of a web service suite. A service provider 114(m)
configured as a web service suite integrates a plurality of
services 118(s) that are accessible via the network 104. Thus,
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2014-003085
Application 12/450,208
Ans. 4.
the service provider 114(m) provides a full suite of services
rather than individual or only a limited number of
services[.]"
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support
the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims for similar
reasons.
For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 24, and 26-27, and corresponding dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15-31 is reversed.
REVERSED
4