Ex Parte Selgas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 2, 2013

10417821 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte THOMAS DRENNAN SELGAS, MICHAEL BRIAN MASSING,
and JOHN EVERETT GMUENDER

Appeal 2011-0029731
Application 10/417,821
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, THU A. DANG, and ANDREW J. DILLON,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is MyMail Ltd. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2011-002973
Application 10/417,821

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5. Claims 2 and 6 have been allowed.
Claim 4 has been cancelled. (App. Br. 3.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
As depicted in Figure 1 below, Appellants invented a method and
system for dynamically allocating login information to a user (user 1) to
access a network (100). In particular, in response to a first user (user 1)
being denied access to the network because login information previously
stored on the first user’s computing device is being used by another user
(user x), the login information is modified to yield second login information
to thereby allow the first user to access the network. (Fig. 1, Spec. 31, ll. 12-
18, Spec. 37, ll. 1-7.)
Appeal 2011-002973
Application 10/417,821

3

Signal Communication Paths between Clients, ISPs
and Network Access Providers

Illustrative Claim
Independent claims 1 and 3 further illustrate the invention. They read
as follows:
1. A method of providing anonymity to a network
user through the dynamic allocation of log-in information
to users comprising the steps of:
storing a hidden set of first log-in information in a
network accessing device during a temporary
communication with an access service connected to the
network; and
storing a modified set of hidden second log-in
information in said network accessing device when the
user, during a subsequent network log-in attempt, is
denied access because another user is presently using
Appeal 2011-002973
Application 10/417,821

4
said first log-in information, said modified set of hidden
second log-in information allowing said network
accessing device to access the network.

3. A method of obtaining a set of network access
information comprising the steps of:
modifying a stored set of network access information
using new information downloaded, via the network, to a
network access device from an access provider connected to
said network; and
the network access device re-accessing the network via a
given network service provider (NSP) using the modified set of
network access information.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Harwood US 6,058,250 May 2, 2000

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Harwood.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7-26, and the Reply Brief, pages 4-17.

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in finding
that Harwood describes in response to a first user being denied access to a
network because another user is presently using login information
previously allocated to the first user, providing the first user modified login
information to access the network, as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2011-002973
Application 10/417,821

5

Appellants argue that Harwood does not describe the disputed
limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 10-13, Reply Br. 11-13.) In
particular, Appellants argue that while Harwood discloses a bifurcated
system wherein a user is prompted to provide login information, as well as
financial information, Harwood does not describe that the user is denied
access to the network because the user’s login information is being used by
another user. (Id.)
In response, the Examiner concludes that “[t]he claim does not recite
a step of determination [sic] or deciding that the ‘user’ is denied access
rather that the condition of a second user using the other user log-in
information is capable of occurring in the network.” Thus the Examiner
finds that Harwood’s disclosure of presenting a scenario where a second user
uses a first user’s log-in information describes the disputed limitations. (Ans.
5-6.)
Based upon our review of the record before us, we do not agree with
the Examiner’s finding of anticipation regarding claim 1. We note at the
outset that while the claim explicitly recites that when a first user is denied
access to a network because another user is using the first user’s login
information providing modified login information to the first user to access
the network. Thus, the claim requires at a bare minimum that the first user
be denied access. As depicted in Figure 3 below, Harwood discloses a
bifurcated system wherein the user provides insensitive information to a
website (330) via a public network (320), and wherein the user subsequently
Appeal 2011-002973
Application 10/417,821

6
provides sensitive information to another site (350) via a private network
(340). (Col. 2, ll. 27-32.) In particular, after providing to the website (330)
the necessary information regarding a desired transaction, the user is
transferred to a private website (350) to enter sensitive information such as
password and account information before the user can be allowed to
complete the transaction. (Col. 5, ll. 12-33.) Harwood discloses that the
bifurcated system is to prevent hackers from misappropriating the user’s
sensitive information being entered in a public network. (Col. 2, ll. 1-7.)

Primary Elements of the Reconfigurable Dual-Path

While Harwood discloses that a hacker can misappropriate a user’s
information in a public network, Harwood is silent as to whether the user in
Appeal 2011-002973
Application 10/417,821

7
a subsequent login is allowed to access the network despite the user’s login
information being misappropriated. The Examiner’s rejection appears to be
premised on a conjecture that if the user’s login information were
misappropriated during the user’s interaction with the public network, the
user’s login information would necessarily be modified in a subsequent
attempt to access the network as a result of being denied access thereto.
(Ans. 6-10.) We find such findings to be speculative at best because
Harwood does not seem to be concerned with the problem of allowing
multiple users to simultaneously access an account. Instead, Harwood is
concerned with circumventing the user’s login information from being
misappropriated. Further, even if a hacker misappropriating the user’s
information could be construed as a second user using the misappropriated
information to access the network, we find nothing in Harwood to indicate
that the user would subsequently be allowed to access the network while the
misappropriating user is accessing the network. Because Appellants have
shown at least one error in the Examiner’s rejection, we need not reach
Appellants’ remaining arguments. It follows that Appellants have shown
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

Regarding claim 3, Appellants argue that Harwood does not describe
modifying network access information with new information downloaded
from a network to subsequently access the same network using the modified
network access information. Instead, Harwood discloses downloading
information from a public network to access a private network. (App. Br. 21-
Appeal 2011-002973
Application 10/417,821

8
22.) In response, the Examiner finds that Harwood’s disclosure of using an
intranet to access a network to complete a user’s transaction describes the
disputed limitations. (Ans. 12-14.)
On the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s rejection. In
particular, we agree with Appellants that Harwood’s disclosure of using
information obtained from a public network to access a private network
teaches accessing two different networks, as opposed to using the
downloaded information to access the same network as required by the
claim. Because Appellants have shown at least one error in the Examiner’s
rejection, we need not reach Appellants’ remaining arguments. It follows
that Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Because claim 5 also recites the disputed limitations above, we find
Appellants have similarly shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5
for the reasons set forth above.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5, as set forth
above.

REVERSED

tj