Ex Parte Yao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

11172625 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111172,625 0613012005
49845 7590 06/02/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Yitao Yao
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.
2043.255US1 7514
EXAMINER
JAKOVAC,RYANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
USPTO@SLWIP.COM
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YITAO YAO,
MARK P. PALAIMA, and ARNOLD GOLDBERG
Appeal2015-000071
Application 11/172,625
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-11 and 22-28, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to an origin aware cookie
verification systems and methods. See generally Abstract, Spec. i-fi-1 1, 8-10.
1 Appellants identify eBay Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000071
Application 11/172,625
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a server generated identification value;
generating, at a client side, a client side identification
value, the client side identification value being unique to the
client;
creating, at the client side, a composite client identification
value from the server generated identification value and the
client side identification value;
transforming, at the client side and using one or more
processors, the composite client identification value; and
returning the composite client identification value to the
server to unambiguously verify the identity of the client to the
server.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
I Hw~no-
~~ •• -~~b I TTS ?007/0?71171' A 1 I Nov ?? ?007 ................ - ......... , .... -._...__,,,_.. ....__...__..._ ~ ' - ' . -- ' - ~ ~ .
Masurkar US 7,685,430 Bl Mar. 23, 2010
Jiang US 7,890,634 B2 Feb. 15, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7 and 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Jiang. Non-Final Act. 6-82.
Claims 8-11, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Jiang and Masurkar. Non-Final
Act. 9-10.
2 Non-Final Action dated Dec. 31, 2013.
2
Appeal2015-000071
Application 11/172,625
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree
with Appellants' arguments regarding the pending claims.
Appellants frame the issue on appeal as follows: "Whether the cited
art generates a client-side identification value that is unique to the client, or
merely a value that is unique to a web page according to the actual text of
the cited art." App. Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). More specifically, Appellants
argue "Hwang merely discusses generating a unique page identification
(PID) value and not a client identification value." App. Br. 9 (emphasis
omitted). Therefore, according to Appellants, the Examiner erred in finding
Hwang taught several limitations of claim 1. See generally App. Br. 8-11.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants'
arguments, finding Hwang teaches the client creating a unique identification
value, using that unique identification value to create a composite client
identification value and returning the composite client identification value
back to the server "to unambiguously verify the identity of the client to the
server," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4-8. We have reviewed the Examiner's
findings and the documents relied upon by the Examiner to support these
findings and we concur with the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejection of claim 22, which
is argued on the same grounds, and claims 2-7 and 23-26, which are not
argued separately. With respect to dependent claims 8-11, 27, and 28,
Appellants merely contend that because the additional reference used in the
rejections of these claims (Masurkar) does not cure the deficiencies in claims
3
Appeal2015-000071
Application 11/172,625
1 and 22, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for
these claims. App. Br. 12. Because we determine there are no deficiencies
associated with claims 1 and 22 for the reasons discussed above, we sustain
the rejections of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-11 and 22-28.
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
4