Ex Parte Salkintzis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 2, 201612366395 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/366,395 0210512009 Apostolis K. Salkintzis 124181 7590 09/07/2016 GOOGLE!fechnology Holdings LLC Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP 600 South Avenue West Westfield, NJ 07090 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. GOOGLE 3.0-1649 7746 EXAMINER PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/07/2016 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): eOfficeAction@ldlkm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte APOSTOLIS K. SALKINTZIS and MICHAEL F. COULAS Appeal2013-010935 Application 12/366,395 Technology Center 2600 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2013-010935 Application 12/366,395 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-18. Claims 19 and 20 have been canceled. See Amendment filed May 15, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner's (i) anticipation rejection of claims 1, 6, and 13-15 and (ii) obviousness rejections of claims 2-5, 7-12, and 16-18. Exemplary Claims The invention concerns a method (see independent claim 1) and a wireless communication device (see independent claim 16) for authentication of a wireless device on a network (see claims 1 and 16). The disclosed invention provides a single joint authentication process for a user of more than one type of communication (Spec. 1: 5-2: 16). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1 and 16, which are reproduced below with emphases added: 1. A method in a device for authenticating the device for use in a network comprising: transmitting a joint request including a request for a first security context for use in securing a first type of communication, wherein the joint request includes a request for a second security context for use in securing a second type of communication; receiving the first security context, and using the first security context to provide secure access and communication via the first type of communication; and receiving the second security context, and using the second security context to provide secure access and communication via the second type of communication 2 Appeal2013-010935 Application 12/366,395 16. A wireless communication device comprising: a user input adapted for receiving a request to initiate a network service; a transceiver adapted for communicating with a network; and a processor coupled to the user input and the transceiver, the processor or generating a request for a first security context for use in securing a first type of communication, where as part of the request the first security context jointly requesting a second security context for use in securing a second type of communication, the request transmitted by the transceiver, and the transceiver receiving the first security context and receiving the second security context; and the processor adapted for using the first security context to provide secure access and communication via the first type of communication; and using the second security context to provide secure access and communication via the second type of communication. The Examiner's Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kinser (US 2007/0294752 Al; published Dec. 20, 2007). 1 Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2--4. 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 6 and 13-15, and Appellants rely on the arguments as to claim 1 for claims 6 and 13-15, which each contain the same limitations argued as to claim 1 by way of their ultimate dependency on claim 1 (see App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 3---6). We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims consisting of claims 1, 6, and 13- 15. Accordingly, we decide the appeal of the Examiner's anticipation rejection on the basis of claim 1. 3 Appeal2013-010935 Application 12/366,395 (2) The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinser in view of Sung (US 200710121526 Al; published May 31, 2007). 2 Final Act. 6-7. (3) The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinser in view of Xie (US 2008/0064369 Al; published Mar. 13, 2008). 3 Final Act. 8. (4) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 7-12, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinser in view of Holtmanns (US 2008/0171534 Al; published July 17, 2008). 4 Final Act. 8-14; Ans. 4. Principal Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-16) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-7), the following principal issue is presented on appeal: 2 Appellants fail to present any arguments with regard to the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under§ 103(a) over Kinser and Sung. Therefore, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 3. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 3. 3 Appellants fail to present any arguments with regard to the rejection of claim 4 under§ 103(a) over Kinser and Xie. Therefore, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. 4 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 5, 7-12, 17, and 18, and Appellants rely on the arguments as to claim 16 for claims 5, 7-12, 17, and 18 (see App. Br. 10-15). We select claim 16 as representative of the group of claims consisting of claims 5, 7-12, and 16-18. Accordingly, we decide the appeal of the Examiner's obviousness rejection over the combination of Kinser and Holtmanns on the basis of claim 16. 4 Appeal2013-010935 Application 12/366,395 Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1, 6, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and (ii) claims 5, 7-12, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because Kinser fails to disclose the disputed limitations of transmitting a "joint request" for authenticating a device in a network, as recited in representative independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in representative independent claim 16? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-15) in light of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-16) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-7) that the Examiner has erred, as well the Examiner's response (Ans. 2--4) to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief. With regard to the anticipation rejection of representative claim 1 and the obviousness rejection of claim 16, we agree with the Examiner's conclusions (see Ans. 4---6) that Kinser (i) discloses a method and device for transmitting a joint authentication request as recited in claim 1; and (ii) in combination with Holtmanns teaches or suggests the wireless communication device that jointly requests a security context for securing a communication, as recited in claim 16. With regard to representative claims 1 and 16, 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. 2-3 (as to claim 1) and 11-13 (as to claim 16)) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-3 (as to claim 1) and 4 (as to claim 16)) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We agree with the Examiner's conclusions that Kinser discloses the limitations of claim 1, and the combination of Kinser 5 Appeal2013-010935 Application 12/366,395 and Holtmanns teaches or suggests the limitations of representative claim 16. With regard to the anticipation of independent claim 1 and the obviousness of independent claim 16, the Examiner relies upon Figures 1 and 5 and paragraphs 24, 25, and 27-29 of Kinser as disclosing the salient limitations of claims 1 and 16, including transmitting a joint request for authenticating a device in a network (Final Act. 2-3 and 11-12; Ans. 4---6). Appellants' contentions (App. Br. 7-8 and 12-13; Reply Br. 3--4) that Kinser's paragraphs 37 and 38 fail to disclose sending a joint request for two services are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Kinser's Figures 1 and 2 pertain to two different embodiments (see Kinser, i-f 8 (describing "a method" diagramed in Fig. 1 ); i-f 9 (describing "another method" diagramed in Fig. 2)). The Examiner only relies on the first embodiment of Kinser (see Figs. 1 and 5 and the accompanying description at i-fi-121-35) in setting forth prima facie cases of anticipation and obviousness. Paragraphs 37 and 38 describe an alternative, or second, embodiment of Kinser. Thus, even if we were to agree with Appellants that Kinser's paragraphs 37 and 38 disclose a principal does not send a joint request for two services, we find that this fact does not prevent Kinser' s first embodiment from (i) disclosing the method including a joint authentication request as recited in claim 1, and/or (ii) teaching or suggesting the wireless communication device that jointly requests a security context for securing a communication as recited in claim 16. In any event, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Kinser discloses a single sign-on method that constitutes a joint request to allow a principal user to authenticate with multiple users via one single and common 6 Appeal2013-010935 Application 12/366,395 request message (see Ans. 3). Additionally, we agree with the Examiner's interpretation that claim 1 merely requires "a single uoint] request results in establishment [i.e., securing] of two secured and authenticated communications with the principal user and the two service" (see Ans. 3), as well as a similar interpretation for claim 16 (see Ans. 4). In view of the foregoing, Appellants have not shown the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 16 to be in error, and we sustain the (i) anticipation rejection of claim 1, and (ii) obviousness rejection of claim 16 in view of the disclosures found in Kinser's first embodiment (Figs. 1 and 5; i-fi-124, 25, and 27-29). Appellants' contentions (App. Br. 8-9) that Kinser teaches away from the claimed invention of claim 1 are not persuasive at least in view of Kinser being an anticipatory reference. Further, Kinser's paragraphs 26 and 28 do not teach away from, or otherwise disparage, the joint authentication request feature recited in claims 1 and/or 16, because the statements in Kinser's (i) paragraph 26 that a single sign-on process be "transparent and seamless from the perspective of the principal" and (ii) paragraph 28 that the single sign-on and authentication process be performed ''perhaps unbeknownst to the principal" (App. Br. 9 citing Kinser, i128)( emphasis added), are merely alternatives and in no way limit the sign-on and authentication to a process of which the principal is unaware. In fact, Kinser's disclosure (see i-fi-127 and 28) in this regard would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the single sign-on occurs automatically in response to a single request, and broadly encompasses situations in which (i) the principal is not aware of the request, and/or (ii) the principal is aware of the request, whether the request be automatic or not. Therefore, Appellants' assertions (App. Br. 8-9) that Kinser teaches away from the invention recited in claim 1 are not persuasive. 7 Appeal2013-010935 Application 12/366,395 Likewise, Appellants' similar contentions with regard to claim 16 (see App. Br. 14 ), are likewise unpersuasive. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 6 and 13- 15 grouped therewith. For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 16, as well as claims 5, 7-12, 17, and 18 grouped therewith. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2-4 Arguments not made in the parties opening briefs are ordinarily deemed waived. See Aventis Pharma, S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl 'ns. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief ... is waived.") (Citations and quotation marks omitted). An appeal "does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de nova review of all aspects of a rejection.'' E'x parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BP AI 2010) (precedential) (citations omitted). Rather, an appealed rejection is reviewed for error identified by the appellant. See also, In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections [.]" (Citing Frye)). Based on Appellants' failure to address the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness as to claims 2--4, Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in determining that the various combinations of Kinser and any of Sung, Xie, and/or Holtmanns teach or suggest the methods for authentication using a joint request as recited in claims 2--4. Accordingly, 8 Appeal2013-010935 Application 12/366,395 we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of these claims pro jorma. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (requiring a statement in the briefs as to each ground of rejection presented by Appellants for review); 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(vii) (stating that arguments not presented in the briefs by Appellants will be refused consideration). CONCLUSIONS ( 1) Appellants have not adequately demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting (a) claims 1, 6, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kinser, and/or (b) claims 5, 7-12, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kinser and Holtmanns. (2) The Examiner's rejections of claims 2--4 as being unpatentable over various combinations of Kinser and other secondary and/or tertiary references are affirmed, proforma, based on Appellants' failure to present any argument as to these rejections. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection of (i) claims 1, 6, and 13-15, and (ii) obviousness rejections of claims 2-5, 7-12, and 16-18. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2013). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation