Ex Parte Moran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2016

10896314 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/896,314 07/21/2004 Anthony Scott Moran
65362 7590 05/26/2016
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
IBM Austin
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
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.
AUS920030947US 1 9236
EXAMINER
WANG, HARRIS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2016 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):
tmunoz@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY SCOTT MORAN, BRIAN EATON,
HEATHER MARIA HINTON, and BENJAMIN B. HARMON
Appeal2015-000493
Application 10/896,314
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SivIITH, ivIICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000493
Application 10/896,314
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-8, 11-19, 21-23, 26-34, 36-38, and 41--45, which are all the
claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Related Appeal
We previously decided an appeal in the present application on
September 26, 2011. See Ex parte Moran, No. 2010-000768, 2011 WL
4484148 (BPAI 2011) (affirming the Examiner's anticipation rejection).
Representative Claim
1. A method of performing an authentication
operation within a data processing system, the method
compnsmg:
receiving a request message from a client at a first server
for a controlled resource;
invoking a second server to generate an authentication
credential; and
receiving the authentication credential at the first server
within a response message from the second server;
using said authentication credential to authenticate said
request message;
in response to a determination that responding to the
request message for the controlled resource requires an
authentication operation, sending a first redirection message
from the first server to the client for an uncontrolled resource at
the second server; and,
in response to receiving a request message for the
uncontrolled resource at the second server from the client as
2
Appeal2015-000493
Application 10/896,314
redirected by the first server, sending a prompting response
message from the second server to the client, wherein the
prompting response message prompts a user of the client to
provide authentication information from which to generate the
authentication credential.
Reiche
Paya
Prior Art
us 6,092,196
US 7,240,192 Bl
Examiner's Rejections
July 18, 2000
July 3, 2007
Claims 1--4, 6-8, 11-19, 21-23, 26-34, 36-38, and 41--45 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reiche and Paya.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner; s Answer as our own. 1 We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants contend the generation or conveyance of an authentication
credential for a user, as required by independent claims 1, 16, and 31, is not
taught by Reiche. Br. 3--4. 2 Appellants' contention is based on the premise
that the status token of Reiche is not the same as the authentication
credential, as claimed. Br. 4. Appellants admit Reiche teaches a status code
1 All references to the Final Action refer to the Final Action mailed on
November 21, 2011, and all references to the Examiner's Answer refer to
the Answer mailed July 31, 2014.
2 All references to the Appeal Brief refer to the Brief filed on March 1 7,
2014.
3
Appeal2015-000493
Application 10/896,314
signifying the user has been authenticated. App. Br. 3. Appellants also state
in paragraph 4 of an affidavit from named inventor, Heather M. Hinton, filed
on March 8, 2013, that an authentication credential may represent the
successful authentication of a user. Accepting Appellants' statement of the
claimed "authentication credential," we find the status code of Reiche,
which signifies a user has been authenticated, teaches an "authentication
credential" within the meaning of independent claims 1, 16, and 31.
On page 5 of the Brief, Appellants quote several limitations of claim
1, and allege the quoted claim language is not taught by the prior art. The
Examiner finds the quoted limitations are taught by the prior art. Final Act.
7-9. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument to rebut
the Examiner's findings. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) ("A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim."); see In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted
Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a
mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.)
We sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 16, and 31 and
corresponding dependent claims 2--4, 6-8, 11-15, 17-19, 21-23, 26-30, 32-
34, 36-38, and 41--45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, 11-19, 21-23, 26-34, 36-38, and
41--45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Reiche and Paya is
affirmed.
4
Appeal2015-000493
Application 10/896,314
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5