Quest Software, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 4, 20212020001036 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/964,027 12/09/2015 Jake Seigel 26941.11 1033 122269 7590 10/04/2021 Brian Tucker Kirton McConkie 36 South State Street, Suite 1900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 EXAMINER BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2021 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): btucker@kmclaw.com ipdocket@kmclaw.com klyon@kmclaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JAKE SEIGEL, DEREK JURY, and SOHAIL ALI ____________________ Appeal 2020-001036 Application 14/964,027 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Quest Software, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001036 Application 14/964,027 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention is directed to allowing a host device to register another device, the host device and the other device can be configured to communicate wirelessly. Spec. para. 9. The device to be registered can be configured to transmit its MAC address (or other device identifier) to the host device via Near Field Communication, Bluetooth, or another wireless protocol. Id. The host device is an administrator’s device, and in conjunction with receiving the device’s identifier, the administrator can input an identifier of the user (e.g., a username) so that the appropriate association can be created between the device and the user. Id. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for registering a user device to access a network via a known host device, the method comprising: displaying, on a known host device, a user interface for registering a user device to access a network, the known host device being registered to access the network and authorized to register other devices to access the network; receiving, by the known host device and via the user interface, input that identifies an identifier of a user of the user device; establishing, by the known host device, a direct wireless communication protocol connection with the user device; sending, by the known host device and via the direct wireless communication protocol connection, a request for an identifier of the user device; receiving, by the known host device and from the user device via the direct wireless communication protocol connection, the identifier of the user device; and transmitting, by the known host device, the user identifier that was received via the user interface and the identifier of the user device that was received via the direct wireless Appeal 2021-001036 Application 14/964,027 3 communication protocol connection to a device management system to enable the device management system to associate the user identifier with the identifier of the user device for the purpose of attributing the user device's network traffic to the user such that the user device is registered to access the network by virtue of the known host device, which has been registered to access the network and authorized to register other devices to access the network, having transmitted the user identifier and the identifier of the user device to the device management system. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kiukkonen US 2013/0309971 Al Nov. 21, 2013 Johnson US 2016/0087933 Al Mar. 24, 2016 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1–10, 14–20 102 Kiukkonen 11–13 103 Kiukkonen, Johnson ANALYSIS Claims 1–10 and 14–20 The Examiner finds that the last limitation of claim 1 only has the bolded key language that need be addressed as indicated below: and transmitting, by the known host device, the user identifier that was received via the user interface and the identifier of the user device that was received via the direct wireless communication protocol connection to a device management system to enable the device management system to associate the user identifier with the identifier of the user device for the purpose of attributing the user device’s network traffic to the user such that the user device is registered to Appeal 2021-001036 Application 14/964,027 4 access the network by virtue of the known host device, which has been registered to access the network and authorized to register other devices to access the network, having transmitted the user identifier and the identifier of the user device to the device management system. Ans. 11. The rest of the language, according to the Examiner, is a repeat of an earlier limitation regarding the known device being already registered. Id. The Examiner finds that the above limitation is essentially describing the post authentication process in which once the credentials of the enrollee device are verified with the registrar device, the registrar device transmits the identifier of the enrollee device that it received via direct wireless protocol connection to the device management system. Id. Appellant argues inter alia that contrary to the Examiner’s finding, the unbolded language is not “a repeat,” but a critical element of the claimed invention. Reply Br. 10; also see Appeal Br. 23–26. Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to consider which devices/systems are involved, what information is being sent, which devices/systems are sending/receiving this information, and why the information is being sent. Reply Br. 10. Appellant emphasizes that the Examiner’s position ignores claim language. Id. Appellant further argues that the disputed limitation does not relate to a post authentication process. Id. To the contrary, Appellant explains, that this limitation is a necessary step of registering the user device to access the network. Id. Stated another way, if the known host device does not perform this limitation, the user device will not be registered to access the network. Id. (citing Spec. paras. 26–27). Appellant explains that the user device is not authenticated prior to this step. Reply Br. 10. In fact, this limitation does Appeal 2021-001036 Application 14/964,027 5 not even directly relate to authentication. Id. According to Appellant, the primary purpose of the registration recited in this limitation is “to enable the device management system to associate the user identifier with the identifier of the user device for the purpose of attributing the user device’s network traffic.” Reply Br. 10 (citing Spec. para. 27). We agree with Appellant’s argument. “‘A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.’” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). The Examiner ignores the unbolded limitation sections and wrongly finds that the unbolded limitation sections relate to post authentication when the claim limitation specifically states the user identifier is associated with the identifier of the user device to attribute the user device’s network traffic to the user so that the user device is registered “to access the network.” Thus, we agree with Appellant that the user device is not authenticated prior to the disputed limitation step. See Reply Br. 10. Thus, we find that Kiukkonen does not disclose the disputed limitation. We are constrained by the record before us to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and, for the same reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–10 and 14–20. Claims 11–13 The additional reference of Johnson does not cure the above cited deficiency. Accordingly, we also reveres the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–13. Appeal 2021-001036 Application 14/964,027 6 CONCLUSION Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–10 and 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–10, 14– 20 102 Kiukkonen 1–10, 14– 20 11–13 103 Kiukkonen, Johnson 11–13 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation