Ex Parte Omshehe et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 14, 2009

09954509 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 14, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BARRY OMSHEHE, JANIE WEST, and PAUL W. FORNEY
____________

Appeal 2009-0883
Application 09/954,509
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: July 14, 20091
____________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, LANCE LEONARD BARRY,
and JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-0883
Application 09/954,509
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-20. The Appellants appeal
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

INVENTION
The invention at issue on appeal facilitates "a session-based
concurrent user licensing agreement on a manufacturing/process control
information portal such that a single logon during a session persists across
multiple distinct resources to which access is provided to a registered user
via the plant information portal site." (Spec. 4: 8-11.)

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method for administering a session-based concurrent user
licensing agreement on a manufacturing/process control
information portal such that a single logon during a session
persists across multiple distinct resources to which access is
provided via a plant information portal server, the method
comprising the steps:
receiving, by the plant information portal server, an
access request for a resource for which a license is required;
invoking, based upon a code within a sequence of
commands associated with the requested resource, a license
manager associated with restricted resources associated with the
plant information portal server, the license manager performing,
for the purpose of granting, if needed, one of potentially
multiple available session-based concurrent licenses, a set of
further steps including:
first confirming that an identified source associated
with the request needs a concurrent license;
2
Appeal 2009-0883
Application 09/954,509
second confirming that a concurrent license is
available to assign to the identified source; and
adding the identified source to a list of session-
based concurrent license users to which a session-based
concurrent license is assigned.

PRIOR ART
Redding US 6,968,384 Nov. 22, 2005
Conte US 5,845,065 Dec. 1, 1998
Frison US 6,049,789 Apr. 11, 2000
Appellants' Admitted Prior Art ("AAPA")

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Section 102(e) as being anticipated by Redding.

Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Redding and AAPA.

Claims 7, 13, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Redding and Conte.

Claim 16 stands rejected under 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Redding, Conte, and Frison.

ISSUE
The Examiner makes the following findings.
3
Appeal 2009-0883
Application 09/954,509
The "portal" feature is realized by virtue of Redding et al's
embodiments involving network authorizations, wherein the
user requests authorization for a program using the networked
license server and upon granting the authorization to the user,
the networked license server functions as the portal or gateway
to the requested software on the network wherein the user's
computer must remain connected to the network to continue
running the protected software (col. 9 lines 45-54).
(Ans. 9-10.) "Redding et al teach the allocation of network authorization
licenses which are session based (col. 9 lines 45-65) . . . ." (Id. 14.)
"Redding et al's teach that after a user requests a commuter authorization
license a local check is made to see if the user 'has already received a
commuter authorization'; if so the process terminates, if not, the process
continues for fulfilling the user's request (col. 10 lines 30-62)." (Id. 11.)

The Appellants argue that "the Final Office Action appears to mix and
match elements from Redding's two distinct authorization modes . . . ."
(Amended App. Br. 8.) Therefore, the issue before us is whether the
Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's finding that Redding
discloses the claimed portal, session-based licenses, and confirming that an
identified source associated with a request needs a concurrent license
arranged as in claims 1 and 17.

LAW
"[A]n invention is anticipated if the same device, including all the
claim limitations, is shown in a single prior art reference. Every element of
the claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim."
4
Appeal 2009-0883
Application 09/954,509
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed.Cir. 1989)
(citing Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 894
(Fed. Cir. 1984); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 771-72
(Fed. Cir. 1983)).

FINDINGS OF FACT ("FFS")
1. Redding discloses a first licensing scheme "referred to hereinafter
as 'network' authorizations." (Col. 9, ll. 53-54.) In this scheme a "client
computer 12 must remain connected to the network to continue to run the
protected software program." (Id. ll. 48-50.)

2. The same reference also discloses a second licensing scheme
referred to as "[c]ommuter licensing . . . according to embodiments of
the [reference's] invention." (Id. ll. 55-56.) "Commuter licensing departs
from the concept of requesting and granting a network authorization
between license server 14 and client computer 12, and instead is concerned
with requesting and granting a 'commuter' authorization between license
server 14 and client computer 12." (Id. ll. 56-61.)

3. The following disclosure of Redding contrasts the two licensing
schemes.
Once a commuter authorization is granted, the client
computer 12 can be disconnected from the network, and can
independently instantiate the protected application one or more
times using the commuter authorization. This is in contrast to
network authorizations, where a client computer 12 must
5
Appeal 2009-0883
Application 09/954,509
request and receive a network authorization for each
instantiation of the protected application.
(Col. 10, ll. 10-16.)

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants that "the Redding patent discloses two
different licensing modes . . . ." (Amended Appeal Br. 6, Reply Br. 5.) The
first mode is the network authorization scheme. (FF 1.) The second mode is
the commuter authorization scheme. (FF 2.) The two schemes are disclosed
as distinct. (FF 3.)

As aforementioned, the Examiner relies on the network authorization
scheme to teach the claimed portal and session-based licenses. As also
aforementioned, she relies on the commuter authorization scheme, however,
to teach the claimed confirming that an identified source associated with a
request needs a concurrent license. Such a "mix[ing] and match[ing] [of]
elements from Redding's two distinct authorization modes" (Amended App.
Br. 8) is inappropriate for a rejection based on anticipation. Therefore, the
Examiner fails to show every element of the claimed invention arranged as
in the claims. Nor does she allege, let alone show, that the addition of
AAPA, Conte, or Frison cures the aforementioned deficiency of Redding.

CONCLUSION
Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, we conclude that the
Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's finding that Redding
discloses the claimed portal, session-based licenses, and confirming that an
6
Appeal 2009-0883
Application 09/954,509
identified source associated with a request needs a concurrent license
arranged as in claims 1 and 17.

DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-20.

REVERSED

PEB

LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD
TWO PRUDENTIAL PLAZA, SUITE 4900
180 NORTH STETSON AVENUE
CHICAGO IL 60601-6731
7