Ex Parte Torres et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

12236186 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/236, 186 09/23/2008 Matt Torres
56436 7590 03/23/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82243451 7442
EXAMINER
TRAN, TONGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATT TORRES, SALLY BLUE HOPPE, and
JIM HARRITT
Appeal2013-009429
Application 12/236,186
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC B. CHEN, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b), and we affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "[a] system and method for
distributing enduring credentials for a secure network in an untrusted
network environment." Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows, with the disputed
limitation emphasized:
Appeal2013-009429
Application 12/236,186
1. A method for distributing enduring credentials for a
secure network in an untrusted network environment,
compnsmg:
receiving temporary credentials at a computing device
from an untrusted user;
relaying the temporary credentials from the computing
device to a network switch;
relaying the temporary credentials from the network
switch to an authentication server within the secure network;
authenticating the computing device connected to the
network switch; and
transmitting enduring credentials to the computing device
in an encrypted format to enable the computing device to
communicate within the secure network through the network
switch without providing access to the enduring credentials to
the untrusted user.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Whittington et al. (US 2008/0132203 Al; Apr. 20, 2006)
("Whittington"). Final Act. 5-10. 1
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Whittington teaches the recited elements of
claim 1. Appellants, on the other hand, contend that Whittington fails to
disclose "transmitting enduring credentials to the computing device in an
encrypted format to enable the computing device to communicate within the
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to ( 1) the Appeal Brief, filed December
7, 2012 ("Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer, mailed April 29, 2013 ("Ans.");
and (3) the Examiner's Final Action, mailed August 10, 2012 ("Final Act.").
2
Appeal2013-009429
Application 12/236,186
secure network through the network switch without providing access to the
enduring credentials to the untrusted user." Br. 12-13 (emphasis omitted).
With respect to claim 11, Appellants additionally assert that
Whittington fails to teach that the "temporary credentials are obtained via a
web server located outside the secure network." See App. Br. 16-19
(emphasis omitted); see also Br. 23-26 (presenting a similar argument with
respect to claim 4).
With respect to claim 20, Appellants also contend that Whittington
does not teach "revoke[ing] the enduring credentials of the computing
device when a change occurs in the computing device." See Br. 20 and 22
(emphasis omitted). Similarly, with respect to claims 15 and 16, Appellants
maintain that Whittington fails to teach revoking the enduring credentials
when an unexpected event occurs. See Br. 28-30.
Appellants argue, with respect to claim 12, that Whittington lacks the
required "server being operable to reconfigure the computing device to
enable the computing device [to] receive the encrypted enduring credentials
over a secure connection with the secure network." See Br. 27.
ISSUES
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claimed
invention by finding that Whittington teaches the disputed limitations
identified above, as recited respectively in claims 1, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, and
20?
3
Appeal2013-009429
Application 12/236,186
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as unpatentable over Whittington.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10
According to Appellants, Whittington fails to teach "transmitting
enduring credentials ... without providing access to the enduring credentials
to the untrusted user," as required by claim 1. Specifically, Appellants
maintain that Whittington's disclosed permanent PIN would be understood
by a skilled artisan to be "a unique number assigned by an organization to an
individual and used as proof of identity." Br. 13-14 (emphasis omitted). As
such, Appellants assert, the untrusted user would have access to the enduring
credentials.
Appellants unsupported, blanket assertions are unpersuasive.
Notably, Appellants fail to provide any persuasive explanation as to why a
skilled artisan would interpret Whittington's permanent PIN to be individual
assigned and accessible. To the contrary, Whittington expressly states that
the permanent PIN is assigned to the mobile communications device, not the
subscriber or user. See, e.g., Whittington, i-18 ("the response including
permanent PIN (PPIN) assigned to the mobile communications device");
Whittington, i-132 ("assigning a personalized indicium such as a PIN
indicium to an MCD.").
Moreover, as the Examiner explains, Whittington discloses
provisioning the PIN to protect from unauthorized attempts to gain access to
the network. Ans. 9. In other words, the purpose in Whittington is to
protect from an untrusted user, and as such, a skilled artisan would
4
Appeal2013-009429
Application 12/236,186
understand that the PIN would not be provided to the untrusted user. As
such, Whittington at least suggests that an untrusted would not have access
to the enduring credentials, as required by claim 1.
Likewise unavailing is Appellants' contention that Whittington
teaches away from claim 1. Appellants assert that Whittington's secured
end-to-end encryption "decrypts the data so the recipient may use the data"
and, thus, teaches away from the claimed invention. Br. 14.
We disagree. Whittington does not persuasively suggest that the use
of the end-to-end encryption would permit an untrusted user access to
Whittington's permanent PIN. Moreover, Appellants' argument incorrectly
relies on the "recipient" necessarily being the untrusted user, rather than the
mobile communications device. As the Examiner further points out,
Whittington's use of end to end encryption at least teaches or suggests the
limitation of "transmitting" the enduring credentials in encrypted format.
Ans. 9.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claim 1 as well as claims 2, 3, and 5-10, not argued with particularity, are
unpatentable over Whittington.
Claims 4, 11-14, and 17-19
First, for the reasons discussed above, we disagree that Whittington
fails to teach "that the untrusted user does not have access to the enduring
credentials," as required by claim 11. See Br. 15-16.
Appellants next assert that Whittington fails to teach that the
temporary credentials are obtained via a web server located outside the
secure network. See Br. 16-19; see also Br. 14--15 (presenting similar
5
Appeal2013-009429
Application 12/236,186
arguments with respect to claim 4 ). According to Appellants, Whittington is
silent regarding "obtaining the TPIN from a web server located outside a
secure network" and further teaches away from this limitation because
Whittington's "TPIN is generated within the mobile communication device."
Br. 1 7 (citing Whittington, i-f8).
Appellants' arguments, though, are not commensurate with the scope
of the claim. Namely, claim 11 does not require the temporary credentials to
be generated by the external web server but merely recites that the
temporary credentials are obtained via (claim 11) or using (claim 4) a web
server outside the secure network. In other words, the temporary credentials
must simply pass through a web server to satisfy the recited limitations.
As such, we are not persuaded that Whittington fails to teach the
disputed limitations. As the Examiner explains, Whittington expressly
teaches of "a remote services server 106 may be interfaced with the
enterprise network 102 for enabling a corporate user to access or effectuate
any of the services from a remote location using a suitable mobile
communications device (MCD) 116." Whittington, i121; see also Ans. 4.
Paragraph 21 of Whittington additionally discloses
A secure communication link with end-to-end encryption may
be established that is mediated through an external IP network,
i.e., a public packet-switched network such as the Internet 108,
as well as the wireless packet data service network 112 operable
with MCD 116 via suitable wireless network infrastructure that
includes a base station (BS) 114.
Whittington, i-f2 l (emphasis added); see also Whittington, Fig. 1. In other
words, the authentication process of Whittington may pass through an
external IP network, i.e. a web server external to the secure network.
6
Appeal2013-009429
Application 12/236,186
Therefore, Whittington teaches the disputed limitations of claims 4 and 11.
See also Ans. 12; Final Act. 4 and 7.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claims 4 and 11 as well as claims 13, 14, and 17-19, not argued with
particularity, are unpatentable over Whittington.
Claims 15, 16, and 20
First, for the reasons discussed above, we disagree that Whittington
fails to teach "that the untrusted user does not have access to the enduring
credentials," as required by claim 20. See Br. 19-20.
Appellants also argue that Whittington does not teach revoking the
enduring credentials of the computing device when a change occurs in the
computing device (claim 20) or when an unexpected event occurs (claims 15
and 16). Br. 20-22 and 28-30. According to Appellants, Whittington
teaches away from this subject matter because Whittington describes re-
registering users due to moving to a different wireless network coverage
area. Br. 21; see also Br 27-28 (presenting similar arguments for claims 15
and 16).
Appellants further contend that
a non-working permanent PIN is not the same as revoking
enduring credentials as the former is simply a misidentification,
and the latter is an explicit action taken by a device to revoke
enduring credentials. In other words, if the device
identification in the Whittington reference were changed back
to the original device identification, the authentication would
work again.
Br. 22.
7
Appeal2013-009429
Application 12/236,186
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. Whittington discloses that
"[a] registration server 216 is operable for providing registration services for
MCDs when they are initially activated or when the user re-registers due to
moving to a different wireless network coverage area." Whittington, i-f 25
(emphasis added). Contrary to Appellants assertions, requiring a "re-
registration" when a user moves into a different wireless network coverage
area at least suggests to a skilled artisan that the initial registration was
revoked before of the move. See also Ans. 5 and 13-1 7. As such,
Whittington teaches the disputed limitations.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claims 15, 16, and 20 are unpatentable over Whittington.
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, Appellants assert that Whittington does not
include a server operable to reconfigure the computing device to enable the
computing device to receive the encrypted enduring credentials over a
secure connection with the secure network. Br. 26-27.
We disagree. We note that the Specification describes that
Once the authenticator allows access to the server for the
predetermined period, the authentication server or another
computer within the secure network 110 can be used to
reconfigure the computing device 102 to receive information in
a secure manner. For example, the computing device may be
reconfigured based on various standards such as secure state
processing (SSP), secure shell (SSH), and secure socket layer
(SSL) to enable information to be communicated in a secure
manner.
8
Appeal2013-009429
Application 12/236,186
Spec. pp. 10-11. Whittington teaches establishing precisely these types of
exemplary secure communication links discussed in the Specification. For
example, Whittington describes that
a remote services server 106 may be interfaced with the
enterprise network 102 for enabling a corporate user to access
or effectuate any of the services from a remote location using a
suitable mobile communications device (MCD) 116. A secure
communication link with end-to-end encryption may be
established that is mediated through an external IP network ...
Whittington, i-f 21. In view of the Specification's description of re-
configuring, Whittington teaches a server "being operable to reconfigure the
computing device to enable the computing device receive the encrypted
enduring credentials over a secure connection with the secure network," as
required by claim 12.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claim 12 is unpatentable over Whittington.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under§ 103.
DECISION
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9