Ex Parte Salowey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2015

11034346 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2015)

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.
11/034,346 01/11/2005 Joseph Salowey 50325-0958 8605
29989 7590 08/26/2015
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP
1 ALMADEN BOULEVARD
FLOOR 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
EXAMINER
DINH, MINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2432
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2015 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 JOSEPH SALOWEY1
____________

Appeal 2012-006343
Application 11/034,346
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–13, 18–41, and 51–60.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant indicates the Real Party in Interest is Cisco Systems, Inc. App.
Br. 1.
2 Claims 14–17 and 42–50 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2012-006343
Application 11/034,346
2

BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention is related to systems and methods for policy-
based revocation of network security credentials, such as digital certificates
and passwords. Spec. ¶ 1, Abstract. The method includes storing one or
more credential revocation rules, wherein each of the credential revocation
rules specifies one or more first attributes and first values of the first
attributes, associated with one or more credentials to be revoked; receiving
and storing one or more network credentials, comprising one or more second
attributes and second values of the second attributes. Id. ¶ 15, Abstract.
When second values of one or more second attributes of a particular network
credential among the one or more network credentials match first values of
one or more first attributes of one of the credential revocation rules, the
method includes determining that the particular network credential is
invalid, and performing a responsive action. Id.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method, comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
receiving one or more credential revocation rules associated
with one or more credentials to be revoked, wherein each of
the credential revocation rules specifies a first set of at least
one or more attribute-value pairs and an operator that
specifies a relationship between a first attribute and a first
value of the first attribute;
wherein each attribute of the attribute-value pairs is represented
by a symbolic attribute name;
receiving one or more network credentials, wherein each of the
network credentials comprises a second set of one or more
attribute-value pairs; and
when a second attribute from the second set of one or more
attribute-value pairs of a particular network credential
matches the first attribute, and a second value of the second
attribute satisfies said relationship,
Appeal 2012-006343
Application 11/034,346
3

determining that the particular network credential is invalid,
and performing a responsive action.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5–9, 18–21, 23, 29–37, 51–53, 55, and 56 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Perlman (US 2002/0099668
A1; published July 25, 2002) and PKI INTEGRATION WITH AAA SERVER
(Cisco Systems, Inc., 2003) (“PKI-AAA”).
Claims 4, 21, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Perlman, PKI-AAA, and Chan (US 7,437,551 B2;
published Oct. 14, 2008).
Claims 10, 24, 38, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Perlman, PKI-AAA, and the admitted prior art (APA).
Claim 11, 25, 28, 39, and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Perlman, PKI-AAA, and Lu (US 2004/0064691 A1;
published Apr. 1, 2004).
Claim 13, 27, 41, and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Perlman, PKI-AAA, and Nguyen-Thai (US 5,745,701;
published Apr. 28, 1998).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action, and the arguments in the Reply Brief presented in response to the
Examiner’s Answer. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis below.
Appellant argues Perlman teaches a certificate revocation list (CRL),
that does not provide any rules, or any other generalized indication of
Appeal 2012-006343
Application 11/034,346
4

whether to revoke a network credential. App. Br. 10; see Reply Br. 1. We
are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We agree with, and adopt as
our own, the Examiner’s finding that Perlman teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation, specifically, by disclosing receiving a rule for revoking
certificates based on a value associated with Registration Authority (RA)
identifier attribute that matches an untrustworthy RA, and a value associated
with the Time/Date Certificate Request Message (CRM) attribute being
equal to, or later than, a particular time, or between particular time periods(s)
when the RA was determined to be untrustworthy. Ans. 5 (citing Perlman
Fig. 4, ¶¶ 13–14, 38–45). We further observe that Perlman teaches that
when Raa16a has become untrustworthy and it is desired to revoke all
certificates issued by Raa16a, an entry in the CRL identifying an RA
identifier for Raa16a would be inserted. Perlman ¶¶ 38, 39. Perlman further
teaches making entries in the CRL that identifies respective RAs, with
indications of the time(s) at which the RAs were or are untrustworthy. Id. ¶¶
40, 41, 43–45.
Appellant further argues that Perlman’s CRL is a list and only
provides data; not an operator that specifies a relation between a first
attribute and a first value of the first attribute. App. Br. 10, 11–12; see
Reply Br. 1, 3–4. Similarly, Appellant contends none of Perlman’s list
entries can specify its own operator as recited in the claims. Id. at 11–12;
see Reply Br. 3–4.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner does
not rely on Perlman alone for teaching or suggesting an operator that
specifies a relation between an attribute and value of an attribute value pair.
Instead, the Examiner relies on Perlman for teaching receiving rules for
revoking credentials, as modified by the teachings of PKI-AAA of using an
Appeal 2012-006343
Application 11/034,346
5

operator to specify the relationship between an attribute and a value of an
attribute value pair. Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 5–6. One cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For similar reasons, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument that PKI-AAA does not teach or suggest receiving
credential revocation rules and operators, and determining whether
credentials should be revoked. App. Br. 10–11, 12; see Reply Br. 4. The
Examiner does not rely on the teachings of PKI-AAA alone for teaching
receiving credential revocation operators and determining whether to revoke
a credential. Instead, the Examiner relies on Perlman for teaching receiving
rules for revoking credentials, as modified by the teachings of PKI-AAA.
Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 5–6.
In regard to the combined teaching of the references, Appellant asserts
“there is no evidence to ‘link’ the references or suggest, based on the cited
references, applicant’s particular claimed combination and the Examiner has
failed to adequately address the issue of motivation to combine the
references with actual evidence.” App. Br. 13. Appellant contends the
Examiner’s reasoning is merely conclusory. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because it is not necessary
to find precise teachings in the prior art directed to the specific subject
matter claimed where, as here, the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ are sufficient to meet the claim
limitations. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[I]n
many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. . . . A person of ordinary
Appeal 2012-006343
Application 11/034,346
6

skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420–
421. We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s determination
that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify Perlman’s method for specifying a
relationship between an attribute and a value of an attribute-value pair(s) for
evaluating network credentials explicitly using an operator and symbolic
attribute name, as taught by PKI-AAA, to avoid the need to embed
configuration data directly into source code and modify source code later
when the configuration data is changed. Final Act. 4; Ans. 6. We further
agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s additional reasoning that
because “rules can be changed and [] different rules may have different
conditions, one of ordinary skill in the programming art could easily
recognize that hard-coding a program with rule configuration data would
pose a challenge to software update and maintenance.” Ans. 13.
Related to the previous argument, Appellant contends
[i]f a skilled person wanted to combine Perlman’s approach
with PKI-AAA approach, then the person would have been
concerned with expanding an attribute list for a Certificate
Revocation List (CRL) to add PKI-security mechanisms to the
CRL list, not to develop an approach for using credential
revocation rules, comprising attributes and operators, to
determine whether a particular network credential should be
revoked, as claimed.
App. Br. 13–14. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because it
is unsupported by objective evidence (e.g., expert testimony). Argument of
counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v.
Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).
For all these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1, 18, 29, and 51, and dependent claims 2–
Appeal 2012-006343
Application 11/034,346
7

11, 13, 19–25, 27, 28, 30–39, 41, 52–58, and 60, not substantively argued
(see App. Br. 14–15).
In the Event of Further Prosecution
We have decided the Appeal before us. We direct the Examiner’s
attention to independent claim 29 which recites: “[a] computer-readable
volatile or non-volatile medium.” We further direct the Examiner’s attention
to paragraph 56 of Appellant’s Specification which includes the following
disclosure:
The term “computer-readable medium” as used herein refers to
any medium that participates in providing instructions to
processor 504 for execution. Such a medium may take many
forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media, volatile
media, and transmission media. . . . Transmission media can
also take the form of acoustic or light waves, such as those
generated during radio wave and infrared data
communications.
Spec. ¶ 56 (emphases added).
Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any
review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review claim 29 to
determine whether it is directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 in light of the examination instructions on patent eligible subject
matter, and Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1859 (PTAB 2013)
(precedential-in-part) (concluding the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“machine-readable storage medium” includes signals per se, absent limiting
language in the specification). See 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014), which supplements
the “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court
Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.”
US Patent and Trademark Office (June 25, 2014),
Appeal 2012-006343
Application 11/034,346
8

http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2
014.pdf, Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Aug.
2012 Update, US Patent and Trademark Office, 11–14,
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/101_training_aug2012.pdf.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1–13, 18–41, and 51–60 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the applied prior art.
TIME PERIOD
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
ACP