Ex Parte Tapling et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

13490715 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/490,715 06/07/2012
70432 7590 08/24/2016
Sughrne Mion PLLC
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter George TAPLING
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.
A215903 (3046-008) 1494
EXAMINER
SU, SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
pprocessing@sughrne.com
sughrne@sughrne.com
demery@sughrne.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER GEORGE TAPLING, ANDREW ROBERT ROLFE,
RA VI GANESAN, and SALLY SHEW ARD
Appeal2014-008257
Application 13/490,715
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SivIITH, JOli1...J R. KE1\J1...JY, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008257
Application 13/490,715
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1---6 and 8-14, which are all the claims remaining in the application.
An oral hearing was held on July 26, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method of operating a security server to perform query
transactions via a network, comprising:
receiving, at the security server from a user network device via
the network, a request of a user to activate a secure communications
channel over the network between the user network device and the
security server;
transmitting, by the security server in response to the received
activation request, an activation code for delivery to the user via
another network;
receiving, at the security server from the user network device
via the network, an activation code;
comparing, at the security server, the received activation code
with the transmitted activation code to validate the received activation
code;
activating the secure communications channel based on the
validation of the received activation code;
receiving, at the security server from an enterprise network,
which is also represented on the network, a query including a question
1 This appeal is related to appeal no. 2014-007761, application no.
13/490677.
2
Appeal2014-008257
Application 13/490,715
for the user, wherein the correct answer to the question has been
previously agreed to by the user and the enterprise;
transmitting, from the security server to the user network device
via the secure communications channel, the received enterprise query;
receiving, at the security server from the user network device
via the secure communications channel, a user answer to the
transmitted enterprise query; and
transmitting the received user answer, from the security server
to the enterprise to further authenticate the user to the enterprise.
Heck
Valkenburg
Bajaj
Park
Kuclar
Prior Art
US 6,671,672 Bl
US 2006/0154645 Al
US 2008/0109657 Al
US 2011/0310908 Al
EP 1445917 A2
Examiner's Rejections
Dec. 30, 2003
July 13, 2006
May 8, 2008
Dec. 22, 2011
Feb.4,2004
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kuclar and Valkenburg.
Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kuclar, Valkenburg, and Heck.
Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kuclar, Valkenburg, Heck, and Bajaj.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kuclar and Park.
3
Appeal2014-008257
Application 13/490,715
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner
in the Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following issues from the
Reply Brief for emphasis.
Section 103 rejections of claims 1-6 and 9-14
Appellants contend Kuclar does not teach "receiving, at the security
server from a user network device via the network, a request of a user to
activate a secure communications channel over the network between the user
network device and the security server" as recited in claim 1, because Kuclar
does not "activate a secure communications channel." Reply Br. 2-12. The
Examiner finds the broadest reasonable interpretation of "activate a secure
communications channel" when read in light of Appellants' Specification
encompasses opening access through a secure channel to an authenticated
entity as taught by Kuclar. Ans. 17-19.
Appellants' Specification uses the terms activation and security server
login interchangeably. Spec. 10. Appellants' Specification also discloses
activation is complete after user authentication is performed. Spec. 13-14.
For example, Appellants' Specification discloses that the "Start-Up and
Activation (Security Server Login) Phase" (Spec. 10:30) is completed when
the user enters a phone number into a security window, receives an
activation code, and forwards the activation code to the security server
(Spec. 13:35 to 14:3). Thereafter, the user is ready to receive transactions.
Spec. 14:3--4 (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that the scope
4
Appeal2014-008257
Application 13/490,715
of "activate a secure communications channel" as recited in claim 1, when
read in light of Appellants' Specification, encompasses opening the secure
channel to an authenticated user as taught by Kuclar.
Appellants contend Valkenburg does not teach "an enterprise
network, which is also represented on the network" as recited in claim 1.
Reply Br. 13-17. Appellants' contention is inconsistent with Figure 1 of
Valkenburg, which shows one large network that includes two smaller
networks 20 and 30, where the security server 24 of network 20 is part of the
combined network, and the security server 34 of network 30 is also part of,
or "represented on" the combined "network" 20 and 30. See Ans. 19-21.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
present arguments for the patentability of claim 9 (Reply Br. 23-26) similar
to those presented for claim 1, which we find unpersuasive. Appellants do
not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2---6 and 10-14,
which fall with claim 1.
Section 103 rejection of claim 8
Appellants contend Park does not teach "receiving, at the security
server from the user network device via the secure communications channel,
transaction information including an identifier of an enterprise with which
the user desires to enter into the transaction via the network, and details of
the desired transaction" as recited in claim 8, because Park does not teach
transaction information. Reply Br. 28--43.
The Examiner finds the scope of "transaction information," when read
in light of Appellants' Specification, is not limited to financial transactions.
Ans. 22-23. The Examiner concludes that the transactions for configuring
5
Appeal2014-008257
Application 13/490,715
and registering a personal network with a converged personal network
service (CPNS) as taught by Park teach receiving the transaction information
including an identifier of an enterprise with which the user desires to enter
into the transaction and details of the transaction within the meaning of
claim 8. Ans. 23-25.
Paragraphs 42--45 and Figure 1 of Park teach a personal network 130
sending a connection request message to a gateway 100, or "security server,"
where the request message is a transaction identifying the CPNS server 140
"enterprise" and the "details of the transaction" are a request to configure
and register the personal network 130 with the CPNS server 140. Appellants
do not provide a definition of the claimed "transaction information" that
excludes the information contained in the request message taught by Park.
Appellants also contend that Park does not teach "transmitting the
transaction information, from the security server to the enterprise via another
secure communications channel" as recited in claim 8. Reply Br. 35.
Appellants' contention is inconsistent with the connection request message
that is transmitted from the gateway "security server" 100 to the CPNS
"enterprise" 140 over another channel CPNS-2 as shown in Figure 1 of Park.
In addition, we highlight Park teaches a CPNS server 140 receiving a
request for a service that was transmitted by a personal network entity ( 110
or 120) through a gateway (100) as taught in Paragraphs 34 and 38 and as
shown in Figure 1, where the personal network entity can be an MP3 player
or a portable media player (PNP) as taught in Paragraphs 5 and 31.
Appellants have not distinguished a security server receiving transaction
information from a user network device as recited in claim 8 from the
gateway of Park receiving a service request from a personal network entity.
6
Appeal2014-008257
Application 13/490,715
Appellants also have not distinguished the security server transmitting the
transaction information to the enterprise as claimed from the gateway of
Park transmitting the request to the CPNS server.
We sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1---6 and 8-14 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7