Ex Parte Otranen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2016

12707941 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121707,941 02/18/2010
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
02/05/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jari OTRANEN
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.
P3811USOO 3505
EXAMINER
ALATA,AYOUB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/05/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JARI OTRANEN and ANS SI KARHINEN
Appeal2014-001409
Application 12/707,941
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-001409
Application 12/707,941
I. STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to "providing
authentication session sharing between browsers and run time environments
in network communication" (Abst.).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at an interface, an authentication context
associated with a first service;
causing, at least in part, by a processor, storage of the
authentication context in a first cache associated with the
interface; and
causing, at least in part, by the processor, population of
the authentication context to a second cache associated with a
second service, the second cache not directly linked to the
interface, wherein the first cache and second cache are on a
common device, and
wherein the authentication context in the second cache
authenticates access to the second service.
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Lester et al.
Corbett
US 2008/0046983 Al
US 8,099,766 Bl
2
Feb.21,2008
Jan. 17,2012
Appeal2014-001409
Application 12/707,941
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lester. 1
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Lester and Corbett.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Lester and Corbett, teaches or would have suggested a
method comprising causing "storage of the authentication context
[associated with a first service] in a first cache associated with the
interface;" and "population of the authentication context to a second cache
associated with a second service," wherein "the first cache and second cache
are on a common device" (claim 1 ). In particular, the issue turns on whether
Lester and Corbett teach or suggest storing authentication context associated
with a first device in a first cache and populating the same authentication
context to a second cache associated with a second device.
1 Although the Examiner indicates in the Non-Final Rejection that "[a] new
ground of rejections is set forth" (Non-Fin. Rej. 2), the Examiner notes that
"rejection 102(b) is maintained'' (Non-Fin. Rej. 3, emphasis added). That is,
the Examiner has never indicated that the rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) have been withdrawn (id.). Instead, as set forth in the
Answer, the Examiner states "Every ground of rejection set forth in the
Office action dated April 4, 2013 from which the appeal is taken is being
maintained ... "(Ans. 3). Accordingly, claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
3
Appeal2014-001409
Application 12/707,941
III. FTI'-JDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Lester
1. Lester discloses using a single authentication with an
authentication service to permit access to a plurality of services provided by
one or more of the service providers, wherein a single verification of
credentials (i.e., sign-in) to the authentication service authenticates the client
(i.e., provides proof of identity of client) for access to a plurality of services
(i-fi-124-25). An authentication service integrated as part of a web service
provider may authenticate a client to access other services, which may
include other services provided by one or more of the service providers
(i-f27). A common credential store stores a variety of account profile data
and authentication data corresponding to accounts and/ or users of a
corresponding one of the clients (i-f28).
2. For example, "Adam" may be "signed-in" to "Adam@play" in
email via browser and to "Adam@work" via an instance of instant
messaging application, and "Adam" may select a link in email to launch an
instant messaging session which causes authentication interface to transfer
the account "Adam@play" to an instance of the instant messaging
application, wherein if the instant messaging application is configured for
multiple instances, then "Adam@play" may be transferred without
"Adam@work" being "signed-out" (i-f65). Upon successful authentication of
"Adam@work" to the instant messaging application, the client may receive
authentication data from the authentication service, and the data
corresponding to the authentication of "Adam@work" to the instant
4
Appeal2014-001409
Application 12/707,941
messaging application may then be stored in the common credential
database and may later be accessed via the authentication interface such as
to transfer the account "Adam@work" to another application and so forth
(i-f66).
Corbett
3. Corbett discloses transmitting credentials between network
elements and disk elements in a storage system, wherein a network element
inserts a credential associated with a user to a network element credential
cache and creates a corresponding credential handle that indexes the
credential in that cache, and the network element then relays the credential
and credential handle to the disk element which adds the credential to a
corresponding disk element credential cache at a location indexed by the
corresponding credential handle (Abst.). Network element credential cache
600a and disk element credential cache 600b share the same memory 224 of
node 200 (col. 15, 11. 23-25; Fig. 2).
IV. ANALYSIS
35 u.s.c. §102(b)
At the outset, we note that Appellants do not present arguments in the
Appeal Brief directed to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, we will sustain this rejection proforma.
35 u.s.c. §103
Appellants contend, although "Lester describes an authentication
service 106 that manages the plurality of user accounts 112 ... , there is no
discussion of a cache ... anywhere in the entire reference" (App. Br. 7). In
particular, Appellants contend Lester does not disclose or suggest "caching
of any kind" (id.).
5
Appeal2014-001409
Application 12/707,941
Although Appellants concede, Corbett discloses "population" of
"caches" wherein "[t]he caches of Corbett may be on a common device,"
Appellants contend "rather than populating an authentication context to a
second cache associated with a second service, Corbett discloses the
population of a first cache by a network element with credentials and the
population of a second cache by a disk element with credential handles"
(App. Br. 8-9).
We consider all of Appellants' arguments and evidence presented, and
disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's rejections of
the claims. We adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments
made in Appellants' Appeal Brief. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments below:
We note Appellants' contentions appear to be directed to what Lester
or Corbett individually fails to disclose or suggest (App. Br. 7-9). However,
although Appellants contend Lester does not disclose or suggest "caching of
any kind" (App. Br. 7), we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on
Corbett for teaching or at least suggesting the use of "cache" (Final Act. 6;
Ans. 6; FF 3). Further, we are unconvinced of error of the Examiner's
finding, "[i]n Lester, the services used by a user of a client device include a
web search, e-mail and instant message via a web browser and other tools"
wherein "[a] conventional feature of each of these network applications are
the use of caches" (Ans. 5). Thus, contrary to Appellants' contention that
Lester does not disclose or suggest "caching of any kind" (App. Br. 7), we
6
Appeal2014-001409
Application 12/707,941
find no error with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Lester and
Corbett teaches or suggests the use of caches.
Lester discloses using a single authentication to permit access to a
plurality of services provided by one or more of the service providers,
wherein only a single verification of credentials is performed and a common
credential store stores a variety of account profile data and authentication
data corresponding to accounts and/or users of a corresponding one of the
clients (FF 1-2). We agree with the Examiner's finding "Lester discloses a
system and method for sharing authentication data between different
services by using a common credential store on a client device" wherein
"[t]he stored authentication data can be used to authenticate a user to a first
device (e.g., web search, e-mail and instant messaging), and the same
authentication data can then be used to authenticate the user to a second
device" (Ans. 4). Thus, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on
Lester for the teaching/suggestion of storing of authentication context
associated with a first service in a first storage location and populating the
same authentication context to a second storage location associated with a
second service, as required by claim 1. As the Examiner finds, Lester
discloses all of the contested limitations except "Lester does not expressly
teach the use of two caches to store credentials" (Ans. 5).
Corbett discloses transmitting credentials between network elements
and disk elements in a storage system, wherein credential associated with a
user is inserted to a network element credential cache, and the network
element then relays the credential to the disk element which adds the
credential to a corresponding disk element credential cache, and wherein the
network element credential cache and disk element credential cache share
7
Appeal2014-001409
Application 12/707,941
the same memory (FF 3). Thus, contrary to Appellants' contention that
"Corbett discloses the population of a first cache by a network element with
credentials and the population of a second cache by a disk element with
credential handles" (App. Br. 8-9), Corbett discloses and suggests storing
credentials in a network element credential cache and populating the disk
element credential cache also with the credentials (FF 3). Accordingly, we
find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Corbett for teaching and
suggesting "storage of the authentication context [credentials] in a first
cache;" and "population of the authentication context to a second cache,"
wherein "the first cache and second cache are on a common device" (claim
1 ).
The test for obviousness is what the combination of Lester and
Corbett would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We find it would
have been well within the level of skill of one skilled in the art to combine
Corbett's storage of credentials in first and second caches on a common
device (FF 3) with Lester's teaching and suggestion of storing authentication
context associated with a first service in a first storage location and
populating the same authentication context to a second storage location
associated with a second service (FF 1-2).
The Supreme Court has clearly stated the "combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellants have provided no evidence that Lester's
storing of authentication context (FF 1-2) in caches (FF 3) was "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art," Leapfrog Enters.,
8
Appeal2014-001409
Application 12/707,941
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor have
Appellants presented evidence that this incorporation yielded more than
expected results.
Rather, we find Appellants' invention is simply a modification of
familiar prior art practices or acts (as taught or suggested by the cited
combination of references) that would have realized a predictable result.
The skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."
KSR at 421.
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2-19 not argued separately and thus falling therewith
(App. Br. 10) over Lester and Corbett.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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).
AFFIRMED
mp
9