Openlane, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 11, 2020

14941207 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
14/941,207 11/13/2015 Hovhannes TUMANYAN 015535-18056C-US 1017
154659 7590 08/11/2020
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC / KAR Auction Services
KAR Auction Services Inc.
20 S. Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
EXAMINER
LANE, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2020 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):
docket-us@lsk-iplaw.com
mail@lsk-iplaw.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOVHANNES TUMANYAN
Appeal 2019-002972
Application 14/941,207
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 21–46, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Openlane, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002972
Application 14/941,207

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “system login and single sign-on.” Spec.
Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 21 is illustrative and reproduced below:
21. A method comprising:
receiving via a web page associated with a first application
of a first system a selection of a link indicative of user input to
access a protected application of a second system, the first
application and the protected application running on at least one
hardware processor;
receiving identity information in the first system of a user
generating the selection of the link;
validating the identity information and extracting first
account information corresponding to the identity information,
wherein the first account information is information of a first
account of the user in the first system, the first account
information including a unique identifier of the user in the first
system;
accessing a mapping between the first account information
of the user and at least one other account information of the user
in other systems, the at least one other account information
comprising at least second account information of the user in the
second system in order to obtain one or more credentials
associated with the user in the second system, the mapping
correlating the first account information and the at least one other
account information, wherein the second account information
includes a unique identifier of the user in the second system and
one or more credentials of the user in the second system;
responsive to receipt of the selection of the link indicative
of the user input to access the protected application of the second
system:
Appeal 2019-002972
Application 14/941,207

3
using the accessed mapping and the selection of the
link indicative of the user input to select, from the at least
one other account information, the second account
information in order to access the one or more credentials
associated with the user in the second system;
generating an authentication token for use with the
second system using the unique identifier of the user in the
second system and the one or more credentials of the user
in the second system;
using the authentication token to login and
authenticate the user to the second system; and
transmitting information, received from the user, for
submission to the protected application of the second
system.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Name2 Number Date
Bailey US 2008/0134295 A1 June 5, 2008
Curling US 2008/0320576 A1 Dec. 25, 2008
Farsedakis US 2010/0153278 A1 June 17, 2010
Luo US 2006/0206926 A1 Sept. 14, 2006
Mateer US 2011/0161206 A1 June 30, 2011
Medvinsky US 2007/0277231 A1 Nov. 29, 2007
Nguyen US 2006/0017549 A1 Jan. 26, 2006
Polis US 7,886,000 B1 Feb. 8, 2011
Spencer US 2010/0107225 A1 Apr. 29, 2010
Stephens US 2007/0294116 A1 Dec. 20, 2007

2 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2019-002972
Application 14/941,207

4
REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims References Final Act.
21, 30, 31, 33, 41, 42 Luo, Bailey, Spencer 3
22, 23, 34, 35 Luo, Bailey, Spencer, Farsedakis 13–14
24, 25, 36, 37 Luo, Bailey, Spencer, Farsedakis,
Stephens
16
26 Luo, Bailey, Spencer, Farsedakis,
Stephens, Mateer
19
27, 38 Luo, Bailey, Spencer, Farsedakis,
Stephens, Nguyen
19
28, 29, 39, 40 Luo, Bailey, Spencer, Curling 21
32 Luo, Bailey, Spencer, Medvinsky 24
43–46 Luo, Bailey, Spencer, Polis 25
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Luo, Bailey, and Spencer rendered claim 1 obvious?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Luo, Bailey,
Spencer, Farsedakis, and Stephens teaches or suggests “the link is indicative
to the first system of enabling creation of a vehicle record on the second
system,” as recited in claim 24?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Luo, Bailey,
Spencer, and Curling teaches or suggests “receiving input to select an
organization from the plurality of organizations,” as recited in claim 28?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Luo, Bailey,
Spencer, and Polis teaches or suggests “the selection of the link to the
second system triggers sign-on of the user to the first system,” as recited in
claim 43?
Appeal 2019-002972
Application 14/941,207

5
ANALYSIS
Claims 21 and 33
Appellant argues that the “combination of Luo and Bailey is not
proper since the references teach away from the combination.” Appeal Br.
7. In particular, Appellant argues:
Independent claims 21 and 33 require two predicate acts in order
to transmit the credentials for the second system: (1) receiving
identity information (e.g., credentials) in order to validate the
user for the first system; and (2) selection of the link to access
the second system. In this regard, the credentials for the second
system are transmitted only after these two predicate acts.
Reply Br. 3–4; see also Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellant, neither Luo
nor Bailey teach these two predicate acts:
Luo teaches that the same credentials input for access to the
portal are transmitted responsive to activating the hyperlink . . . .
Bailey teaches that the credentials for all connected systems are
transmitted when one system is validated (e.g., validation for
access to “BobWork” results in automatically transmitting the
mapped credentials for “BobHome” and “BobAlt”).
Reply Br. 4; see also Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. “A
reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference
for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v.
Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(quotation omitted). Here, Appellant has not pointed to any evidence that
Luo or Bailey criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation
into the invention claimed. Appellant merely points out that Luo and Bailey
each individually teach a different way of signing in, but teaching an
alternative way is not teaching away.
Appeal 2019-002972
Application 14/941,207

6
Moreover, “[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner relied on Spencer for teaching the claimed
“responsive to” and “using the accessed mapping and the selection of the
link” limitations. Final Act. 6–7. Yet Appellant has not addressed Spencer.
See Reply Br. 2–5; see also Appeal Br. 5–9. Further, Appellant merely
attacks Luo and Bailey individually, but has not sufficiently addressed the
combination of Luo and Bailey (e.g., when the user clicks the link as in Luo,
looking to Bailey’s mapping for the second username and password). See
Final Act. 3–6 (relying on Luo for “selection of a link” but Bailey for the
claimed “mapping”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 21 and 33.
Claims 24 and 36
Dependent claim 24 recites “the link is indicative to the first system of
enabling creation of a vehicle record on the second system.” Dependent
claim 36 recites a commensurate limitation.
The Examiner finds that Stephens discloses “a link selected by a user
creates reservation information for a rental vehicle.” Final Act. 16–17
(citing Stephens ¶ 75).
Appellant argues that “Stephens teaches that the user is already
granted access to the reservation system” and therefore “is conducting an
action in the current system – not in any second system (subject to
validation).” Reply Br. 5–6.
Appeal 2019-002972
Application 14/941,207

7
However, similar to the independent claims, Appellant is arguing
Stephens individually, not in combination. The Examiner relied upon Luo,
Bailey, and Spencer for teaching the claimed “systems,” including the link
for the second system, and Appellant has not sufficiently addressed the
Examiner’s combination concluding that it would have been obvious that
Luo’s link could be for a rental vehicle reservation page, as taught by
Stephens. See also Appeal Br. 9–10 (further attacking Luo individually).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 36.
Claims 28 and 39
Dependent claim 28 recites “determining that the second account
information of the user is associated with a plurality of organizations” and
“receiving input to select an organization from the plurality of
organizations.” Dependent claim 39 recites commensurate limitations.
The Examiner relies on Bailey for the “determining” step and Curling
for the “receiving” step. Final Act. 21–22.
Appellant argues “Bailey teaches that signing on to one account
results in signing on to all linked accounts” and thus “Bailey specifically
teaches away from receiving any input, at the time of sign on, that affects
which of the linked accounts are actually signed on.” Appeal Br. 10.
However, similar to the independent claims, Appellant argues Bailey
individually and does not sufficiently address the Examiner’s combination
(e.g., when the user clicks the link as in Luo, looking to Bailey’s mapping
for the second username and password and using Curling to select a
particular organization from that mapping). As above, Appellant fails to
identify any way in which Bailey criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages the claimed invention.
Appeal 2019-002972
Application 14/941,207

8
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28 and 39.
Claims 43–46
Dependent claim 43 recites “the selection of the link to the second
system triggers sign-on of the user to the first system.” Dependent claims
44–46 recite commensurate limitations.
Appellant argues “Luo, used in combination with Polis, is directly
contrary to the teaching and results in an inoperable combination” because
“Luo requires the sign-on process [to the first system] before the hyperlink
[to the second system] is selected.” Appeal Br. 11.
We agree with Appellant. Luo and Polis teach logging into a second
system after selecting a link, but the Examiner fails to explain how Luo or
Polis, alone or in combination, teach or suggest logging into the first system
after selecting the link. Instead, as Appellant points out (Appeal Br. 11),
Luo discloses that “[p]ortal 40 is accessible by client computer 10 only after
authentication of client’s credentials.” Luo ¶ 43. Therefore, Luo’s user
would not have access to the link for the second system until after logging
into the first system.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 43–
46.
Remaining Claims
Appellant does not argue the remaining claims or rejections
separately. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 22, 23, 25–27, 29–32, 34, 35, 37, 38, and 40–42. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-002972
Application 14/941,207

9
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
21, 30, 31,
33, 41, 42
103 Luo, Bailey, Spencer 21, 30, 31,
33, 41, 42

22, 23, 34,
35
103 Luo, Bailey, Spencer,
Farsedakis
22, 23, 34,
35

24, 25, 36,
37
103 Luo, Bailey, Spencer,
Farsedakis, Stephens
24, 25, 36,
37

26 103 Luo, Bailey, Spencer,
Farsedakis, Stephens,
Mateer
26
27, 38 103 Luo, Bailey, Spencer,
Farsedakis, Stephens,
Nguyen
27, 38
28, 29, 39,
40
103 Luo, Bailey, Spencer,
Curling
28, 29, 39,
40

32 103 Luo, Bailey, Spencer,
Medvinsky
32
43–46 103 Luo, Bailey, Spencer,
Polis
43–46
OVERALL 21–42 43–46
TIME TO RESPOND
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.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART