Ex Parte Thomson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2013

11342774 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/342,774 01/30/2006 Brian Ward Thomson CA920050115US1 (042) 1765
46320 7590 09/24/2013
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
EXAMINER
CHANG, KENNETH W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2013 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 BRIAN WARD THOMSON
____________

Appeal 2011-001564
Application 11/342,774
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-001564
Application 11/342,774

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to shared authentication for composite
applications, such as portals. See generally Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 0001-02.
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows, with a key limitation
emphasized:
1. A method for shared authentication in a composite application, the
method comprising:
masquerading application components for the composite application
as login modules in a pluggable authentication module (PAM) framework in
memory of an aggregation environment provided within a host computing
platform configured for delivering access to the composite application to
communicatively coupled clients over a computer communications network;
and,
performing a single sign on (SSO) for the PAM framework.
The Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Ullrich (US 2004/0268154 A1; published Dec. 30,
2004). Ans. 4-22.
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ullrich and Grandcolas (US 2006/0195816 A1; published
Aug. 31, 2006, filed Oct. 3, 2005). Ans. 22-24.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Ullrich discloses every recited limitation of
representative claim 1. Ans. 4-6. Appellant asserts that the Examiner erred
in finding Ullrich discloses “masquerading application components for the
composite application as login modules in a pluggable authentication
module (PAM) framework” as recited in claim 1 because Ullrich neither
Appeal 2011-001564
Application 11/342,774

3
discloses a login module in a PAM framework nor the requisite
masquerading. App. Br. 8-12.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner reads the recited “login modules in
a pluggable authentication module (PAM) framework” on Ullrich’s
“authscheme.” Ans. 5, 25. Ullrich describes an authentication method for
flexibly authenticating various classes of users for access to information
having various levels of security or sensitivity. See Ullrich, Abstract. To do
so, an authentication scheme or “authscheme” is used to govern access to
content in an integrated view or “iView,” which is a portal content
component that retrieves data from applications or databases. See Ullrich,
¶¶ 0020, 0022. “An authscheme defines the steps that must be accomplished
as part of an authentication mechanism, and defines pieces of information
that are required to compute and authenticate the identity of a user.” See
Ullrich, ¶ 0022. “An authscheme also defines the user interaction that must
occur in order to gather required information by the authentication
mechanism.” See Ullrich, ¶ 0023. Ullrich indicates, as an example of
gathering information required by the authentication mechanism, an
authscheme can include an iView that displays logon forms. Id.
Although recognizing Ullrich’s authscheme controls the nature of a
login process managed by an “iView,” Appellant contends that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have understood a login module to be “a computer
program portion that is configured to process login requests” and so the
recited “login module” does not encompass Ullrich’s authscheme. App. Br.
8-9. Appellant’s argument concerning an ordinarily skilled artisans’
purported understanding of a login module is noted but does not provide
persuasive evidence of such an understanding. Nor does Appellant identify
Appeal 2011-001564
Application 11/342,774

4
a definition in Appellant’s Specification. See generally App. Br. 8-12.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted) “[T]he specification is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term, and . . . acts as a
dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it
defines terms by implication.”).
Appellant further contends that the recited “login module” is
compared more appropriately to Ullrich’s “iView” and not to Ullrich’s login
module. App. Br. 9. In response, the Examiner indicates the authscheme
can include an iView that displays logon forms. Ans. 25 (quoting Ullrich,
¶ 0023).
Appellant’s argument that the iView is a better comparison to the
recited “login module” is not persuasive because Appellant’s argument is
not germane to the Examiner’s rejection which reads the recited “login
module” on Ullrich’s authscheme. Moreover, Appellant’s argument lends
support to the Examiner’s position regarding Ullrich’s authscheme in that
the Examiner points to Ullrich’s description of an example of gathering
information required by the authscheme can include an iView that displays
logon forms.
We are not persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation, in
light of Appellant’s Specification, of “login module” would not encompass
Ullrich’s authscheme, which is used to govern access to content by defining
authentication mechanism steps, defining pieces of information required for
authentication, and defining that user interface to gather information
required by the authentication mechanism. See Ullrich, ¶¶ 0020, 0022-23.
Appeal 2011-001564
Application 11/342,774

5
Appellant also asserts that the Examiner has not demonstrated that
Ullrich’s authscheme is part of a pluggable authentication module (PAM)
framework, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 9. In response, the Examiner
points to Ullrich’s indications that “[t]he systems and techniques described
here relate to pluggable authentication schemes for multi-level access to
applications and content from an enterprise portal.” Ans. 24-25 (quoting
Ulrich, ¶ 0015); see also Ans. 5 (quoting same). The Examiner also relies
on Ullrich’s description of the process of using an authscheme. Ans. 5
(citing Ullrich, ¶ 0030); Ans. 25 (citing Ullrich, ¶ 0030). When more than
one authscheme is installed, a default authscheme may be used and users in
a higher-security class would alter the authscheme to gain higher access.
Ullrich, ¶ 0030.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s position that Ullrich
discloses a login module in a pluggable authentication module (PAM)
framework is in error.
Appellant also argues that Ullrich does not disclose “masquerading
application components for the composite application as login modules in a
pluggable authentication module (PAM) framework,” recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 10-12. For support, Appellant proffers a general dictionary
definition of “masquerade” as “an action or appearance that is mere disguise
or show,” as the broadest reasonable meaning. App. Br. 11-12.
By contrast, to interpret the “masquerade” limitation, the Examiner
turns to Appellant’s Specification examples of masquerading application
components for the composite application as login modules in a pluggable
authentication module (PAM) framework as (i) loading an aggregation
environment for managing the composite application, (ii) contributing an
Appeal 2011-001564
Application 11/342,774

6
extension to the aggregation environment for each of the application
components, and (iii) providing a login module as part of each extension.
Ans. 27 (quoting Spec. ¶ 0011). Moreover, the Examiner also finds that
Ullrich’s description of displaying an authentication mechanism of the
authscheme as a view component prior to rendering the portal content
component itself as meeting Appellant’s proffered definition of
“masquerade.” Ans. 27 (quoting Ullrich, ¶ 0030).
In response, Appellant also argues that the term “extension” in the
context of a pluggable authentication module (PAM) and an “aggregation
environment” has a specific meaning and so precludes the Examiner’s
interpretation. App. Br. 10-11.
We are not persuaded of error. First, Appellant’s proffered definition
of “extension” from a commercial website (eclipsezone.com) is noted, but
this definition does not limit our interpretation. This authority is dated April
24, 2007, which is after the present application’s effective filing date of
January 30, 2006. Moreover, this definition is in the context of a particular
software development environment (Eclipse), which is not recited by the
claims or mentioned in Appellant’s Specification. To limit the interpretation
of “extension” based on such evidence would unduly narrow our
interpretation.
We, therefore, sustain the anticipation rejection of independent claim
1 and claims 2-9 and 11-20, not argued separately (App. Br. 6, 8, 11). We
also sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 10, not argued separately
(App. Br. 12).

Appeal 2011-001564
Application 11/342,774

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-20 under
§ 102 or claim 10 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk