Ex Parte ReismanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 21, 201612893259 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/893,259 09/29/2010 105758 7590 06/23/2016 Renaissance IP Law Group LLP (Portland - North) 7327 SW Barnes Road #521 Portland, OR 97225 Richard R. Reisman 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. 47003/0030 3773 EXAMINER RASHID, HARUNUR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2497 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2016 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): matthew. phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com docket. clerk@renaissanceiplaw.com PhillipsPatentLawyer@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD R. REISMAN Appeal2014-000651 Application 12/893,259 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 12-14, which are all the claims pending in the application. We held a hearing on a related Appeal (2014-000914; 12/603,229) on June 7, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal2014-000651 Application 12/893,259 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to providing services from a remote computer system to a user station over a communications network. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 12 is exemplary: 12. A computer implemented method, comprising: receiving by a remote computer system over a communications network, first information identifying a user station not previously identified to the remote computer system during a first user initiated communication sess10n; sending from the remote computer system to the user station second information that is a function of and different from the first information during the first user initiated communication session; storing third information based on the first information at a location remote from the user station and accessible to the remote computer system; receiving the second information at the remote computer system during a second user initiated communication session from the user station automatically, wherein the user station triggers automatically sending the second information to the remote computer system, wherein the second information \~1as automatically stored at the user station; retrieving the previously stored third information at the remote computer system; and matching at least a portion of the received second information with the stored third information; wherein the second information is used by the remote computer system as a station identifier, and wherein the station identifier is used by the remote computer system as a surrogate for a user identifier. Mc Calley Loucks Johnson Reisman References and Rejections us 5,191,410 us 5,481,720 us 5,560,008 US 6,594,692 B 1 2 Mar. 2, 1993 Jan.2, 1996 Sept. 24, 1996 July 15, 2003 Appeal2014-000651 Application 12/893,259 Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson and McCalley. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson, McCalley, and Loucks. 1 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant's conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Johnson teaches "a user station not previously identified to the remote computer system," as recited in independent claim 12. See App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 3--4. The Examiner cites Johnson and finds: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed features, the examiner interpreted "the server builds a set of credentials" (since user is unknown to the server) as a "Not Previously Identified to the Remote Computer System". Furthermore, "The server establishes all of the credentials for the user, and stores this information in a data structure called the credentials structure, and returns a small value (e.g. 64 bits) to the client machine where the user is running. This returned small value is referred to as the credentials identifier" also interprets as server does not know about the user as a result server "returns a small value (e.g. 64 bits) to the client machine where the user is running. This returned small value is referred to as the credentials identifier After the credentials identifier is returned to the user, all the user has to do is to present the credentials identifier to the server in every request requiring authentication that is made of that server. The server utilizes the credentials identifier to 1 The Examiner withdrew a double patenting rejection. See Ans. 3. 3 Appeal2014-000651 Application 12/893,259 reconstitute the set of credentials that are saved away for that user" (col. 5, lines 60 to col. 6, lines 1-4). Ans. 4--5; see also Ans. 6-7; Final Act. 8, 13. We have examined the Johnson portions cited by the Examiner, and agree with Appellant that they do not describe a user station not previously identified to the remote computer system, as required by the claim. See App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 3--4. Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited Johnson portions teach the disputed claim limitation. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 12. Independent claims 13 and 14 recite claim limitations that are substantively the same as the disputed limitation of claim 12. Therefore, for similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 13 and 14. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 12-14. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation