Ex Parte Vinokurov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2014

11704354 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte DMITRI VINOKUROV and VINOD KUMAR CHOYI
_____________

Appeal 2011-009426
Application 11/704,354
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 14.
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for managing access security by
user and device. See abstract of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A system for user-device access security policy management,
the system comprising:
an access device having corresponding device credentials; and
Appeal 2011-009426
Application 11/704,354
2

a security policy enforcement manager that receives, from said
access device, user credentials and said device credentials, to retrieve
a user security policy with use of said user credentials, to retrieve a
device security policy with use of said device credentials, to generate
a user-device security policy with use of said user security policy and
said device security policy, and to enforce said user-device security
policy, wherein a user can switch between different devices under the
same user credentials by using different device credentials.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE

The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3, 6 through 10, 13, and
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated Herrmann (US 2004/0167984
A1). Answer 3-7.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Herrmann and Yeh (US 2006/0294580
A1). Answer 8-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, Examiner’s
rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We
disagree with Appellants’ conclusion the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 2, 4 through 9, and 11 through 14; however, we concur with Appellants’
conclusion the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3 and 10.

1Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated September 10,
2010, Reply Brief dated March 23, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
on February 3, 2011.

Appeal 2011-009426
Application 11/704,354
3

Claims 1, 2, 8 and 9
With respect to claim 1, Appellants argue “using traditional
authentication technology" as disclosed by Herrmann does not allow a user
to use different device credentials in the claimed manner. Appeal Brief 8-9.
Additionally, Appellants argue Herrmann does not teach the use of different
device credentials as claimed, and that Herrmann teaches away from having
credentials associated with the device. Appeal Brief 9. The Examiner has
provided a comprehensive response to these arguments identifying the
sections of Herrmann that support the finding that Herrmann uses both user
credentials and device credentials. Answer 11-13. We have reviewed the
disclosure of Herrmann and concur with the Examiner’s fact findings and
claim interpretation. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 8, and 9 grouped
with claim 1.

Claims 3 and 10
With respect to claims 3 and 10, Appellants argue Herrmann does not
teach user credentials are transmitted over a first channel to the security
policy enforcement manager and device credentials are transmitted over a
second channel to the policy enforcement manager. Appeal Brief 10. The
Examiner finds this feature is taught by Herrmann’s use of an out-of-band
communication for the additional attributes (which the Examiner equates to
the device credentials). Answer 13-14 (citing Herrmann ¶0069). In reply,
Appellants argue this out-of-band communication in Herrmann is to a
separate security evaluation service and not the single security enforcement
manager as claimed. Reply Brief 4-5. We concur with Appellants. Claims
Appeal 2011-009426
Application 11/704,354
4

3 and 10 recite two communication channels to the security enforcement
manager, the evidence cited by the Examiner does not demonstrate the out–
of-band communication for the device credentials (additional attribute) is to
the same manager as the communication of the user credentials.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 10.

Claims 6 and 13
With respect to claims 6 and 13, Appellants argue “Herrmann does
not combine user and device security rules. Instead, Herrmann discloses that
only the client provides ‘security enforcement attributes.’” Appeal Brief 11.
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to these arguments.
Answer 14-15. We have reviewed, and concur with, the Examiner’s
reasoning. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 13 and we sustain the rejection of these
claims.

Claims 7 and 14
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Appellants argue “Herrmann does
not add user security rules to device security rules. The cited portion of
Herrmann only refers to ‘security-relevant attributes of the client device.’
Her[r]mann does not provide the recited user security rules because
Her[r]mann's ‘user identity’ is not a security rule.” Appeal Brief 11-12.
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to these arguments.
Answer 14-15. In this response the Examiner identifies that Appellants’
Specification discusses security rules as including identity, roles and/or
services of the user security policy, and the Examiner identifies how
Herrmann teaches this feature. Answer 15. We have reviewed, and concur
Appeal 2011-009426
Application 11/704,354
5

with, the Examiner’s reasoning. We do not find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 14 and we
sustain the rejection of these claims.

Claims 4 and 11
With respect to claims 4 and 11, Appellants argue that Herrmann does
not teach a database with a user security policy as recited in claims 4 and 11.
Further, Appellants argue Yeh, cited by the Examiner as teaching such a
database, does not teach a database that stores any user security policies.
Appeal Brief 13-14. The Examiner has found that Yeh teaches that the
database contains data creating link records to the user’s work groups, roles
and device configurations, which meets the claimed security policies.
Answer 15-17. We have reviewed, and concur with, the Examiner’s
response to these arguments. We do not find Appellants’ arguments
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 11 and we
sustain the rejection of these claims.

Claims 5 and 12
With respect to claims 5 and 12, Appellants’ arguments present the
same line of reasoning as presented with respect to claim 4. Appeal Br.
14-15. The Examiner’s response is similar to that presented with respect to
claim 4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and
12 for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 4.

DECISION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and, 10.
Appeal 2011-009426
Application 11/704,354
6

We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 9, and
11 through 14.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 14 is
affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART

tj