Ex Parte Salazar

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 21, 2011

10320999 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 21, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FERNANDO J. SALAZAR
____________

Appeal 2009-012626
Application 10/320,999
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DENISE M. POTHIER and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012626
Application 10/320,999

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17. Claims 3, 8, 12, 16, and
18-28 have been canceled. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a technique for customizing computer
applications based on user properties. See Spec. ¶ 0001. Claim 1 is
reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for customizing an application, comprising:
authenticating a user when the application is accessed; wherein
the authenticating includes obtaining a user property from the user;
identifying the user having the user property that identifies the user
as belonging to a group of users, every user in the group of users
having an identical value for the user property; wherein the user
property comprises at least one of: a path, a group designation, and
a user attribute;
matching the user with a property string that is based on the user
property, wherein the property string is associated with a
customization object;
accessing the customization object; and
customizing the application for the user based on the customization
object.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Gwertzman US 6,189,000 B1 Feb. 13, 2001

Appeal 2009-012626
Application 10/320,999

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gwertzman. Ans. 2-5.
1

THE CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner maps Gwertzman’s
column, 8, lines 42-45 to the step of authenticating of a user and
Gwertzman’s column 8, lines 28-38 to: (a) the authenticating step further
including obtaining a user property and (b) the recited step of identifying a
user having the user property that identifies the user as belonging to a
particular group. Ans. 2-3.
Appellant argues that the Examiner incorrectly characterizes
Gwertzman’s DepObject and DepProp as a user property. App. Br. 5-6.
Appellant asserts that these fields are used to create a second object or
cross-link storage mechanisms that create group properties and cannot be a
user property. App. Br. 6-7. Appellant also contends the claimed invention
requires that the user property be determined during an authentication
process or when the user logs on to access an application, and that the
recited user property identifies the user group to which the user belongs.
App. Br. 6-7. Appellant further argues that Gwertzman’s cookie
mechanism, which is purportedly the closest analogy to an authentication
process, cannot equate to the recited user property because it is unique (App.
Br. 6) and “does not contain information pertaining to which group a user
belongs.” App. Br. 7.

1
Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed December
23, 2008; and (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 3, 2009.
Appeal 2009-012626
Application 10/320,999

4
ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Gwertzman discloses: (1) authenticating a user when the application is
accessed, including obtaining a user property, and (2) the user property: (a)
identifies the user as belonging to a user group and (b) comprises at least one
of a path, a group designation and a user attribute?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Gwertzman discloses initializing an object (e.g., ObjectInfo) using
configuration information defined in Table 1. Table 1 includes
configuration fields, including DepObject and DepProp. Col. 8, ll. 3-19.
2. Gwertzman discusses using DepObject and DepProp fields to
instantiate a second object and can be used for grouping properties. For
example, when a user accesses a corporate web site, the user can be
presented with a particular background color. This is achieved by putting a
user in a group, and the user in the group inherits the properties of that
group, like the same background color. Gwertzman col. 8, ll. 28-36.
3. Gwertzman states group properties are created by mapping in a
user from one storage mechanism based on an Active Directory service
(ADS) object to another storage mechanism or cross-linking between storage
mechanisms. Gwertzman also states a GetObject function is used by an
application to obtain an ADS object containing a user property. Col. 8, ll.
36-42; col. 9, ll. 27-37.
4. Gwertzman discloses fields (BindAsName, BindAsPassword) are
used to authenticate a user credentials/password with a storage mechanism.
Appeal 2009-012626
Application 10/320,999

5
Without proper authentication the requesting application cannot access the
storage mechanism having the desired user property. Col. 8, ll. 42-49.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, which recites authenticating a user by obtaining a user
property from the user. The primary issue concerns the recited phrase, “a
user property.” Appellant asserts “a user property” has to: (1) identify which
group the user belongs to and (2) be obtained or determined during
authentication. App. Br. 6-7. We agree with this characterization to the
extent that claim 1 recites both that the authenticating step includes
obtaining a user property and that the user property identifies the user as
belonging to a group of users.
Yet, we also note that Appellant states a user property “can be any
way of identifying one or more users in [a] set [of users]” and encompasses
“an attribute of the user(s)[.]” Spec. ¶0005. Thus, giving the recited “user
property” which “comprises at least one of: a path, group designation, and a
user attribute,” its broadest reasonable construction in light of the disclosure,
a user property includes a user attribute that identifies a user in a user set in
any way. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted).
The Examiner maps the object fields, DepObject and DepProp, to the
recited user property. See Ans. 2, 6-7. The Examiner discusses that these
properties correspond to information contained in an ObjectInfo object (see
FF 1), and that these properties are recognized as abbreviations for a
“Department” Object and a “Department” Property (see Ans. 7), which
Appeal 2009-012626
Application 10/320,999

6
identify a user’s department (e.g., a group). Appellant has not challenged
the Examiner’s finding of these recognized abbreviations. See generally
Appeal Brief. We therefore find that these properties in Gwertzman (e.g.,
DepObject, DepProp) are user properties (col. 7, ll. 51-52; see also FF 3)
comprising user attributes (e.g., user’s department object or property) and
identify the user as belonging to a group of users (e.g., a department) as
recited.
Appellant focuses on Gwertzman’s discussion of background colors
and how the fields are used to create group properties or cross-link storage
mechanisms. App. Br. 5-7. However, the Examiner has not relied upon the
cross-linking discussion in Gwertzman to disclose the recited user property.
See Ans. 2-3, 6-7. Nonetheless, the Examiner cites to Gwertzman’s
discussion of the background color for a particular group of users accessing
a corporate Web site, as further evidence that the DepObject and DepProp
fields are user properties that identify the user as belonging to a group of
users. Ans. 2, 6-7, 9. Also, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, claim 1 does
not recite that “every user in the group of users” has “an identical value for
the user property.” App. Br. 7.
To elaborate, Gwertzman discloses user properties, such as DepObject
and DepProp, are used to create a group’s property and ultimately reflect a
background color presented to a user based on the user’s group. FF 2-3.
That is, a user is provided with a particular background color by determining
a group property, such as by using DepObject and DepProp fields, and thus,
formulating a group property necessarily involves identifying the user as
having a user property that identifies the user as belonging to a group (e.g., a
department) as recited. See id. We therefore also find that Gwertzman
Appeal 2009-012626
Application 10/320,999

7
discloses a user property comprising a group designation (e.g., a department)
because these properties are used to create a group property and ultimately
determine the background color.
Appellant further argues the authenticating step includes obtaining the
user property and that Gwertzman obtains a user property, which is allegedly
background color, not “when an authorized user logs in” (App. Br. 7) but
after cross-linking storage mechanisms. App. Br. 5, 7. Appellant also
asserts that the Gwertzman’s cookie processing mechanism is the closest
analogy to Appellant’s authentication process. App. Br. 6. However, as
explained above, we note that the Examiner does not rely on the cookie and
its associated mechanisms or the cross-linking mechanism to disclose the
user property or the authentication step. See Ans. 2, 8-9.
The term, “authenticating,” has been broadly described by Appellant
to include “any process for authenticating [a] user [] now known or later
developed . . . .” Spec. ¶0020 (emphasis added). Additionally, in one
embodiment an “authentication system” is described as “using the
identification of [a] user … to obtain one or more user properties[.]” Id.
Thus, the claimed step of “authenticating a user when the application is
accessed” includes any known process for authenticating, such as verifying a
user, and can additionally include obtaining user properties. Also, despite
Appellant’s arguments (see App. Br. 5), the claimed authentication process
is not a single event and can reasonably be construed as a process which a
user includes first verifying and then receiving a user property.
Gwertzman’s process of obtaining a background color for a user
describes an authenticating process for a user when an application is
accessed and includes obtaining a user property from the user. See FF 2-4.
Appeal 2009-012626
Application 10/320,999

8
As the Examiner states (see Ans. 2, 6-7, 9), when a user enters or logs into a
corporate website (see FF 2), which is part of the authentication process,
Gwertzman discloses obtaining the DepObject and DepProp fields (e.g., user
properties) and placing the user in a group based on these fields. See FF 2-3.
Thus, Gwertzman discloses a process where the user is placed into a given
group through some type of validation process and presented with a
particular background color after some type of validation process to permit
the user to log into a website based on user properties obtained. See id. The
Examiner further explains (Ans. 8) that Gwertzman discloses using a name
and password field to tell the storage mechanism interface a user’s
credentials are authentic (e.g., verification) and before accessing the desired
user property (e.g., obtaining DepObject and DepProp). See FF 3-4. We
therefore find that the Examiner’s position (see Ans. 2, 9) that Gwertzman
discloses authenticating includes obtaining a user property from a user is
reasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of: (1) independent claim 1 and (2) claims 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15
and 17 not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 5-8).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15, and
17 under § 102.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-15 and,
17 is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-012626
Application 10/320,999

9
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

ELD