Ex Parte Reisman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2014

11513329 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD R. REISMAN
____________

Appeal 2011-011028
Application 11/513,329
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011028
Application 11/513,329

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 6, 8, 9, and 29-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
Independent claim 6, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
6. A computer implemented method for identifying user
stations over a communications network, at least a portion of
which includes the Internet, comprising:
receiving first user station related information at a server
from a user station over the communications network during a
first user station initiated communication session for a user
station not previously identified to the remote computer system;
processing a first interaction using the first user station
related information during the first user station initiated
communication session;
sending second user station related information that is
different from the first user station identification information to
the user station over the communications network during the
first user station initiated communication session to be stored
automatically at the user station, and wherein the second user
station related information includes a unique user station
identifier,
causing information relating to the first user station
related information to be stored at a location that is remote from
the user station and accessible to the server;
generating an association between the first user station
related information and the second user station related
information and including that association with the stored
information accessible to the server;
Appeal 2011-011028
Application 11/513,329

3
receiving, at the server, the second user station related
information over the communications network during a
subsequent and separate user station initiated communication
session automatically from the user station independently of the
identity of a user using the user station during the subsequent
and separate communication session;
obtaining, by the server, the stored information relating
to the first user station related information using the received
second user station related information and the generated
association, during the subsequent and separate communication
session; and
using the obtained information relating to the first user
station related information during the subsequent and separate
communication session.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 8, 9, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 5,560,008, Sep. 24, 1996).
Ans. 4-9.
The Examiner rejected claims 30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Johnson and Loucks (US 5,481,720, Jan. 2, 1996).
Ans. 9-10.

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Johnson
discloses the limitations of “a method for identifying user stations over a
communications network . . . independently of the identity of a user using
the user station during a subsequent and separate communication session,”
as recited in claim 6 (emphasis added).

Appeal 2011-011028
Application 11/513,329

4
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that “in Johnson, authentication is tied directly to the
user. It is the user, not the user station, that must be authenticated.” App.
Br. 14 (emphasis ours); see also App. Br. 11-14. In particular, Appellant
argues, “Nowhere does Johnson disclose or suggest that authentication is
independent of the user.” Id. at 14 (emphasis ours). Appellant further
contends “Johnson does not state that such authentication is explicitly based
on the particular client machine the user sends the request from, but only
that such be an authenticated request.” Reply Br. 2.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments. We adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 4-15).
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
We note Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with
the claim language as claim 6 does not recite “authentication” to be done
independent of the user. Instead, claim 6 requires, inter alia, “identifying
user stations over a communications network . . . independently of the
identity of a user using the user station” (emphasis ours).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that presenting the credentials
identifier to the server in Johnson corresponds to the claimed identifying
user stations independently of the identity of a user limitations. Ans. 11-12.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Johnson discloses 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. After the
credentials identifier is returned to the user, all the user
Appeal 2011-011028
Application 11/513,329

5
has to do is to present the credentials identifier to the server in
every request requiring authentication that is made of that
server (col. 5, lines 55 -67 an col. 6, lines 1-4 and figs. 7-9).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, this
feature of Johnson (i.e. the credential 10 received at the server)
suggests the limitation “independently of the identity of a user
using the user station during a subsequent and separate
communication session”. Because the credential 10 is
presented by itself to the server without a user identity using the
user station, it is received independent of the identity of a user
using the user station during a subsequent and separate
communication session.

Id. (emphasis ours).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error regarding
the rejection of claim 6, claim 8 which has commensurate claim language,
and claims 9, 29, and 31, not argued separately. App. Br. 18. Regarding
claims 30 and 32, Appellant argues Loucks does not cure the noted
deficiencies of Johnson. Id. As discussed above, we find no such
deficiencies in Johnson to remedy.
Consequently, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 6, 8, 9, and 29-32.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant, for the first time, presents an argument
that Johnson does not teach “the second user station related information” is
received “automatically from the user station independently of the identity
of the user.” Reply Br. 1-4. We find this argument to be untimely.
“Considering an argument advanced for the first time in a reply brief . . . is
not only unfair to an appellee but also entails the risk of an improvident or
ill-advised opinion on the legal issues tendered.” McBride v. Merrell Dow
and Pharms., Inc., 800 F.2d 1208, 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (internal citations
Appeal 2011-011028
Application 11/513,329

6
omitted). “The failure to raise all issues and arguments diligently, in a
timely fashion, has consequences.” Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473,
1475 (BPAI 2010) (informative decision) (absent a showing of good cause,
the Board is not required to address argument in Reply Brief that could have
been presented in the principal Brief).
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
independent claims 6 and 8, and dependent claims 9 and 29-32.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6, 8, 9, 29, and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Johnson.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 30 and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson and Loucks.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 8, 9, and 29-32 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc