Ex Parte Ritt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2014

10843492 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/843,492 05/10/2004 Markus Ritt 6631P016 4691
45062 7590 09/18/2014
SAP/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
MCNALLY, MICHAEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARKUS RITT and WOLFGANG GERTEIS
____________

Appeal 2012-005736
Application 10/843,492
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants
1
seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1–22
2
as anticipated and as reciting non-
statutory subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.
3

1
The Real Party in Interest is SAP AG Corporation.
2
App. Br. 2.
3
Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed July 14, 2011 (“App.
Br.”); Reply Brief filed November 1, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Appeal 2012-005736
Application 10/843,492

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method of generating a role-based user
interface. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 11, 21, and 22 are independent. The claims have not been
argued separately and, therefore, stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed
limitations italicized:
1. A method comprising:
authenticating a user;
in response to authenticating the user, accessing a user
interface (UI) code, the UI code to generate a UI page, the UI
page including instructions to generate a graphical user
interface (GUI) for the user, the UI code including a security
relevant portion of the UI code to generate a security relevant
UI page element, the security relevant UI page element
including instructions to generate a security relevant GUI
element related to an application; and
in response to accessing the UI code, executing the UI
code to generate the UI page, the executing the UI code
including executing a first portion of the UI code to include a
UI page element in the UI page, wherein the executing the first
portion of the UI code is independent of whether or not the user
has an authorization to access the application, the executing the
UI code further including determining whether the user has the
authorization to access the application, the determining based

Answer mailed September 13, 2011 (“Ans.”); and the Non-Final Office
Action mailed July 12, 2010.
Appeal 2012-005736
Application 10/843,492

3
on a security policy and user role information, the executing the
UI code further including performing one of
with a processor of a computing device, executing the
security relevant portion of the UI code to include the security
relevant UI page element in the UI page, the executing the
security relevant portion of the UI code in response to
determining that the user has the authorization to access the
application, and
preventing executing the security relevant portion of the
UI code to prevent an including of the security relevant UI page
element in the UI page, the preventing executing the security
relevant portion of the UI code in response to determining that
the user does not have the authorization to access the
application.

References and Rejections:
4

Claims 11–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter. Ans. 4, 8.
Claims 1–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Uchil (US 7,409,710 B1; issued Aug. 5, 2008; filed Oct. 14, 2003). Ans. 5–
8.

4
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2012-005736
Application 10/843,492

4
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101
We summarily sustain the rejection of Claims 11–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 in view of Appellants statement that the present rejection is not a
subject of this Appeal. App. Br. 7. See Ex parte Frye, Appeal 2009-
006013, 2010 WL 889747, at *4 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“If an
appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue—or, more broadly,
on a particular rejection—the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally
review those uncontested aspects of the rejection”).

35 U.S.C. § 102
Claims 1–10 and 21
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’
conclusions.
Appellants contend that Uchil fails to disclose “authenticating a user”
and “in response to authenticating the user, accessing a user interface (UI)
code . . . ,” as recited in independent Claim 1. App. Br. 7. Appellants
contend that Uchil is directed to techniques for providing an authentication
user interface that is to be used for authenticating a user. In Uchil’s method,
a user employs a browser to send an HTTP request for authentication that
comprises the user’s credential information. Based on the credentials, a first
plug-in module is invoked that provides configuration properties that are
Appeal 2012-005736
Application 10/843,492

5
used to define a user authentication user interface. The authentication user
interface is dynamically generated based on an HTTP request. The
authentication user interface then is used for gathering further user credential
information for authentication of the user. App. Br. 7–8. However,
Appellants contend that Uchil fails to teach any operation that is
implemented in response to the user having been authenticated. App. Br. 9.
Appellants further note the Examiner’s current findings regarding
Uchil contradict the Examiner’s earlier findings concerning the reference. In
an earlier non-final rejection, the Examiner found Uchil was “mute in
teaching authenticating a user prior to generating a user interface for the
user.” App. Br. 12 (quoting Non-Final Office Action mailed July 12, 2010,
4).
5
Without acknowledging the apparent inconsistency, the Examiner now
finds that Uchil’s HTTP authentication request, which comprises the user’s
credential information, is an authentication and that a user interface is
generated in response to this authentication. Ans. 10.
We disagree. With respect to Claims 1, 11, 21, and 22, the Examiner
finds that Uchil “teaches authenticating the user before dynamically

5
In the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 12, 2010, independent Claims
1, 11, 21, and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Uchil
and Tangellapally, US 7,426,475 B1, referred to by the Examiner as “Tang.”
Appellants assert the present claims have the identical form to those rejected
in the July 12, 2010 Non-Final Office Action. See App. Br. 12.

Appeal 2012-005736
Application 10/843,492

6
generating user interface to the authenticated user via HTTP request.” Ans.
5 (citing Uchil, col. 10, l. 7–col. 11, l. 40; Figure 5, elements 510 and 520).
We find that Uchil discloses:
[t]he present embodiment begins by reading an HTTP request
for authentication from a browser associated with a user, at 510.
The HTTP request comprises credential information associated
with the user. As described previously, the credential
information comprises identifying information that is helpful in
determining which authentication service, and its corresponding
plug-in module, is selected to provide authentication services
through the pluggable architecture to the user. For example, the
credential information identifies the organization that the user is
associated with. Each organization is associated with a
particular authentication service that authenticates its users.
Uchil, col. 10, ll. 15–27. Thus far, Uchil has not authenticated the user.
Rather, “the query information comprises the credential information that is
used for determining the required authentication services used in a selected
plug-in module to authenticate the user.” Uchil, col. 10, ll. 38–41.
Appellants contend that if Uchil’s user was authenticated merely by
the selecting of the plug-in module, then there would be no need to
subsequently generate, based on the selected plug-in module, an
authentication user interface for use in a (redundant) authentication of the
user. Reply Br. 6. This contention is consistent with the reference
disclosure that “[b]ased on the various credential information, a first plug-in
module is invoked from a plurality of plug-in modules. In the present
embodiment, the first plug-in module is used for authenticating the user.
Appeal 2012-005736
Application 10/843,492

7
Uchil, col. 2, ll. 35–38. Because we do not find that Uchil discloses the
contested limitation, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1–10 and
21.
Claims 11–20 and 22
The Examiner makes substantially the same finding and Appellants
advance substantially the same arguments as discussed above. Because we
do not find that Uchil discloses the contested limitation, we decline to
sustain the rejection of Claims 11–20 and 22.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 11–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is summarily
AFFIRMED.
The rejection of Claims 1–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is REVERSED.
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 IN PART

kis