Ex Parte RodnianskyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613773154 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/773,154 02/21/2013 Leonid Rodniansky AUS920120368US1 7045 63400 7590 IBM CORP. (DHJ) c/o DAVID H. JUDSON 15950 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 225 DALLAS, TX 75248 12/29/2016 EXAMINER LI, MENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2437 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): mail@davidjudson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEONID RODNIANSKY Appeal 2016-000146 Application 13/773,154 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-000146 Application 13/773,154 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to input prediction in a database access control system. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method operative in a database access control system wherein database client requests directed to a database server are intercepted by an agent for validation against a security policy, comprising: receiving a client request that has been forwarded by the agent for validation; determining, based on the client request and at least one database protocol rule, and using an input prediction module executed on a hardware element, whether a next client request expected to be received by the agent requires validation against a security policy; based on an outcome of the determination, providing an instruction to the agent, wherein the instruction instructs the agent to release the next client request to the database server without forwarding the next client request for validation against the security policy. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Eakin US 2005/0079859 A1 Apr. 14,2005 Ben-Natan US 7,426,512 B1 Sept. 16,2008 Raab US 7,904,454 B2 Mar. 8, 2011 2 Appeal 2016-000146 Application 13/773,154 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1—4, 6, 8—11, 13, 15—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eakin and Ben-Natan. Final Act. 5—11. Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eakin, Ben-Natan, and Raab. Final Act. 9-11. APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS 1. A broadest reasonable interpretation of the term prediction as used in the claims distinguishes over Eakin’s determination, based on an initial receipt of a password recognizing an authorized device, that subsequent device requests do not need to include a security code. App. Br. 6—10. 2. “[Tjthere is no ‘input prediction module in Eakin; the operation of obtaining the security indicia is just implementing a request-response protocol by which the user is prompted to enter a password or the like, and by which the system stores that indicia for later use.” App. Br. 11. 3. Eakin’s security indicia-obtaining function does not operate “based on the client request” or “at least one databased protocol rule.” Id. 4. Eakin fails to disclose or suggest using the results of the input prediction module determination. App. Br. 11—12. 5. The Examiner’s rationale for combining the applied art in formulating each of the rejections is deficient rendering the corresponding rejections improper. App. Br. 14—19. ANALYSIS 3 Appeal 2016-000146 Application 13/773,154 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—12) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—15) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. In connection with contention 1 the Examiner interprets the disputed determining step of claim 1, concluding “‘an input prediction module’ or prediction function in the claim is broadly interpreted as determining whether a next client request requires validation against a security policy or not.” See Ans. 10. The Examiner finds In Eakin, the attribute “an appliance ID” in [a] request is used to determine if the next request requires validation against a security policy or not (see Eakin par. 38). Also, Eakin in paragraph 45 discloses that the database access control logic 228 of a database device 126 is implemented such that a received request to access private database is processed to determine authenticity and such that the subsequent communication of the private database is communicated to the requesting device. Appellant argues “a ‘prediction’ carries its ordinary meaning, e.g., of a statement about something that will happen in the future.” App. Br. 6. According to Appellant, There is no notion of “input prediction” carried out in the Eakin system; indeed, the entire system is deterministic, and the decision to grant or deny access is based entirely on the existence (or the lack thereof) of “predetermined security indicia” that may or may not be present in a memory. 4 Appeal 2016-000146 Application 13/773,154 App. Br. 9. Appellant argues “Eakin does not perform any sort of determination about future events” and “in Eakin nothing is predicted, and no prediction is obtained or used.” App. Br. 10. The Examiner responds by finding “the ‘input prediction module’ claimed is merely determining whether a next client request requires validation against a security policy or not.” Ans. 9. Similarly, Eakin’s validation of the initial client request is a prediction of whether a next client request will require validation against a security policy or not. Ans. 10. Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner error. By validating an initial request, Eakin is determining something that will happen in the future, i.e., a next request from the same appliance ID, will, based on the initial request, also be authentic and, therefore, Eakin does not require the next request be validated. It is not the fact that Eakin makes a decision not to validate that teaches predicting, e.g., predicting that the next request will not be validated, it is the determination that a future request from the same appliance ID will also be authentic and, as a result, revalidation is not required. Contrary to Appellant’s reply, it is not necessary to excise prediction out of the claim to find Eakin teaches or suggests the disputed claim language (Reply Br. 2) because, even under Appellant’s proffered interpretation, Eakin satisfies the disputed prediction limitation by making a statement about something that will happen in the future, i.e., that a next request from the same appliance ID will be authentic. Therefore, we disagree “the Examiner has simply rewritten the claimed ‘input prediction module’ (and its prediction function) to read ‘input validation module’” or that “the Examiner’s analysis [ignores] the entire notion of a ‘prediction” (Reply Br. 3 4). 5 Appeal 2016-000146 Application 13/773,154 Eakin is similar to Appellant’s method which, if a client request satisfies a security policy (Eakin’s security code is correct), a next client request is not forwarded for validation against the security policy (the user does not need to reenter the security code for a next access). Furthermore, because Eakin makes a determination about a next request, i.e., whether a next access request from the same device will be authentic, the determination satisfies Appellant’s proffered definition for a prediction. Based on this definition, Appellant’s argument Eakin’s process is not predictive because it is instead deterministic (App. Br. 10) is not commensurate in scope with claim 1. In particular, Appellant provides no evidence supporting a conclusion the prediction of claim 1 excludes a deterministic method of making a statement about something that will happen in the future. That is, we find no language in claim 1 that requires the prediction module incorporate some level of uncertainty akin to the mystical vagaries of using a crystal ball to foretell the future. Although Eakin’s security indicia may be simpler than the prediction envisioned by a preferred embodiment of Appellant’s invention, any such distinction is not reflected by the claim language. In connection with contention 2 Appellant’s argument is premised on the previously argued failure of the prior art to perform a prediction and, therefore, is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra. In connection with contention 3 Appellant argues Eakin’s security indicia-obtaining function does not operate based on the client request or at least one database rule. App. Br. 11. The Examiner responds by finding, contrary to Appellant’s contention, Eakin’s security indicia-obtaining 6 Appeal 2016-000146 Application 13/773,154 function is a result of successful verification of an initial user request. Ans. 11. The Examiner explains: Once the security indicia is saved which is equivalent to “providing an instruction to the agent”, the software module is able to instruct to release next client request with appliance ID to access private database once matching appliance ID with security indicia. There is no need to forward the next client request for validation anymore. Id citing Eakin 138. The Examiner further finds Eakin’s matching of an appliance ID with the security indicia teaches or suggests the disputed database protocol rule. Ans. 12. Appellant’s contention 3 is unpersuasive of Examiner error. As found by the Examiner, Eakin discloses a protocol for authenticating a user by entering a security code or password upon an initial request to access a private database and, subsequently, not requiring the user to reenter the security code or password while using an appliance having same ID as previously authenticated. Eakins H 34, 38. Thus, Eakin’s security indicia- obtaining function operates based on the client request and at least one database protocol rule as required by claim 1. Appellant’s contention 4 is based on an asserted failure of the prior art to teach or suggest predicting whether a next client request requires validation. Because, for the reasons discussed supra, we disagree with Appellant and instead find Eakin teaches or suggests the disputed prediction module, we likewise find unpersuasive Appellant’s contention 4 which is premised on the alleged deficiency of the prior art. Finally, in connection with contention 5, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in combining Eakin and Ben-Natan in rejecting claims 1—4, 7 Appeal 2016-000146 Application 13/773,154 6, 8—11, 13, 15—18, and 20 and in relying on their further combination with Raab in rejecting claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 19, and 21. App. Br. 14—19. Contrary to and in full consideration of Appellant’s arguments, we find the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. See Final Act. 7, 10, Ans. 5, 8, 12—15; see also KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In contrast, Appellant fails to provide persuasive evidence or explanation showing the Examiner’s asserted combination is anything other than the combination of familiar elements yielding no more than predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416—17. Such a combination is itself a sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support a finding of obviousness. For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Eakin and Ben-Natan and, for the same reasons, the rejection of independent claims 8 and 15 which include substantially the same limitation, together with the rejection of dependent claims 2-4, 6, 9-11, 13, 16—18, and 20. Furthermore and for the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Eakin, Ben-Natan, and Raab. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—21. AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation