Ryan Grier et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2022

2021000065 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2022)

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. 13/478,082 05/22/2012 Ryan Wesley Grier SR. 107497-0106 6040 30542 7590 01/03/2022 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 3000 K STREET N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER STOICA, ADRIAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2494 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2022 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): ipdocketing@foley.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte RYAN WESLEY GRIER SR., JEFFREY DOUGLAS CARDILLO, ALEXANDER BROWN, SIMON RALPH DENNIS, JAMES P. KITTRIDGE, IAN DAVID SAYERS, and ROBERT WILLIAM BETHANIS JR. ________________ Appeal 2021-000065 Application 13/478,082 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JASON J. CHUNG, BETH Z. SHAW, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 26-47.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention relates to accessing account information. Abstract. Claim 26 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). According to Appellant, Barclays Bank Delaware is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 1-25 are cancelled. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-000065 Application 13/478,082 2 26. A method comprising: determining, at a user device, that a first indication is an initial request to provide account information at the user device; upon determining that the first indication is an initial request, sending, from a user device, a first request to a device for account information via an application on the user device, the first request including user credentials; receiving a token and account information at the application on the user device; determining, based on presence of the token at the user device, that a second indication is not an initial request to provide account information; upon determining that the second indication is not an initial request, sending, from the user device, a second request to a device for account information via an application on the user device, the second request including the token and not including user credentials; receiving limited access, at the user device, to select account information in response to the device receiving the token without user credentials. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added). REJECTIONS3 The Examiner rejects claims 31 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 4. The Examiner rejects claims 26-30, 32, 34-37, 40, 42-44 and 47 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zapata (US 2009/0037995 A1; published Feb. 5, 2009) and Logan (US 2012/0260322 A1; filed Apr. 8, 2011). Final Act. 4-10. 3 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has been withdrawn. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-000065 Application 13/478,082 3 The Examiner rejects claims 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45, and 46 under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Zapata, Logan, and Bartoli (US 6,047,268; issued Apr. 4, 2000). Final Act. 10-12. ANALYSIS I. Claims 31 and 38 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph The Examiner rejects claims 31 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 4. Appellant does not proffer any arguments. We, therefore, summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31 and 38. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(1). To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims or issues, such arguments are considered waived or forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re Google Tech. Holdings, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The “failure to raise . . . arguments, inadvertent or not, compels a finding of forfeiture.”); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, . . . the Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.”). Additionally, “[i]f a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer.” Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 1205.02 (9th ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020). Appeal 2021-000065 Application 13/478,082 4 II. Claims 26-47 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner finds Zapata teaches a user enters a user name and password, and upon successful validation, the user is logged in when the user is a first time user, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “determining, at a user device, that a first indication is an initial request to provide account information at the user device” recited in claim 26. Ans. 6- 8 (citing Zapata ¶ 39); Final Act. 5-6 (citing Zapata ¶ 39). Moreover, the Examiner finds Zapata teaches subsequent to an initial request, a token is present at the user device and the client application sends the token and user credentials to the server, which the Examiner maps to the limitation determining, based on presence of the token at the user device, that a second indication is not an initial request to provide account information; upon determining that the second indication is not an initial request, sending, from the user device, a second request to a device for account information via an application on the user device recited in claim 26. Ans. 7-9 (citing Zapata ¶¶ 40, 41, 44-46, Fig. 4); Final Act. 7 (citing Zapata ¶¶ 9, 28-32, 41, 43-45, Figs. 4-6, 8). The Examiner finds Logan teaches security tokens provided without user-entered credentials, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “the second request including the token and not including user credentials” recited in claim 26. Ans. 9 (citing Logan ¶ 18); Final Act. 7 (citing Logan ¶ 18). Appellant argues Zapata teaches the opposite of the limitation “determining, at a user device, that a first indication is an initial request to provide account information at the user device” because Zapata’s determination is performed at server 12. Appeal Br. 11-12 (citing Zapata ¶ 39); Reply Br. 4-7 (citing Zapata ¶ 39). Appellant also argues that Zapata merely teaches that server 12 creates a cookie, which fails to teach the Appeal 2021-000065 Application 13/478,082 5 limitations “determining, based on presence of the token at the user device, that a second indication is not an initial request to provide account information” and “upon determining that the second indication is not an initial request, sending, from the user device, a second request to a device for account information via an application on the user device” recited in claim 26. Appeal Br. 11-12 (citing Zapata ¶¶ 39, 41). In addition, Appellant argues Logan fails to cure the deficiencies of Zapata because Logan merely teaches a short lived token model serving as an alternative authentication model rather than the italicized limitations above. Appeal Br. 12-13 (citing Logan ¶¶ 10, 11). We disagree with Appellant. Zapata teaches a user is prompted to enter a user name and password (i.e., provide account information), and upon successful validation (i.e., determining at a user device), the user is logged in, which teaches the limitation “determining, at a user device, that a first indication is an initial request to provide account information at the user device” recited in claim 26. See Ans. 6-8 (citing Zapata ¶ 39); see also Final Act. 5-6 (citing Zapata ¶ 39). Furthermore, Zapata teaches subsequent to an initial request (i.e., not an initial request), a token is present (i.e., determining, based on the presence of a token at a user device) at the user device and the client application sends the token and user credentials (i.e., sending, from the user device, a second request) to the server, which teaches the limitation determining, based on presence of the token at the user device, that a second indication is not an initial request to provide account information; upon determining that the second indication is not an initial request, sending, from the user device, a second request to a device for account information via an application on the user device recited in claim 26. See Ans. 7-9 (citing Zapata ¶¶ 40, 41, 44-46, Fig. 4); Appeal 2021-000065 Application 13/478,082 6 see also Final Act. 7 (citing Zapata ¶¶ 9, 28-32, 41, 43-45, Figs. 4-6, 8). Logan describes the token may encode a user identifier and may also include time-based limitations. Logan ¶ 17. The Examiner finds Logan’s user identifier may be different from the user credentials (i.e., account and password information). Ans. 9; Final Act. 7. Logan teaches security tokens provided without user-entered credentials, which teaches the limitation “the second request including the token and not including user credentials” recited in claim 26. See Ans. 9 (citing Logan ¶ 18); see also Final Act. 7 (citing Logan ¶ 18). Appellant does not argue claims 27-47 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 9-13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 26, 34, and 42; and (2) dependent claims 27-33, 35- 41, and 43-47 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-000065 Application 13/478,082 7 CONCLUSION 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 31, 38 112 second paragraph Indefiniteness 31, 38 26-30, 32, 34-37, 40, 42-44, 47 103(a) Zapata, Logan 26-30, 32, 34-37, 40, 42-44, 47 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45, 46 103(a) Zapata, Logan, Bartoli 31, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45, 46 Overall Outcome 26-47