Ex Parte Boldyrev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2016

13073696 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/073,696 03/28/2011
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
05/25/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sergey Boldyrev
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.
P5098US01 8388
EXAMINER
TABOR, AMARE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SERGEY BOLDYREV and
IAN JUSTIN OLIVER1
Appeal2014-005929
Application 13/073,696
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants disclose an approach for providing single sign-on for
computation closures in which a single sign-on management platform
1 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005929
Application 13/073,696
determines to create a single sign-on computation closure in response to an
initiation of a single sign-on authentication session. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized and
disputed recitation [i] labeled, is mustrative:
1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or
processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least
one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least
one signal based, at least in part, on the following:
[i] a single sign-on computation closure created in
response to an initiation of a single sign-on authentication
session;
one or more computation entities that are to execute at
least one other computation closure under the single sign-on
authentication session; and
at least one determination, by at least one processor, to
transfer the single sign-on computation closure to the one or
more computation entities.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Hinton et al. (US 2012/001578 Al; Jan. 12, 2012). Final Act.
2-7.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Hinton discloses recitation [i] of
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hinton's creation of a
single sign-on (SSO) in a federated single sign-on (F-SSO) system discloses
recitation [i]. Final Act. 2-3 (citing, e.g., Hinton i-f 46). In particular, the
2
Appeal2014-005929
Application 13/073,696
Examiner interprets the claimed computation closure as encompassing
computational elements, and that Hinton's timestamp, user identity, or
HTTP-based Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) assertions
having authentication data are computational elements that represent
computation closures. Final Act. 8 (citing Spec. i-f 4; Hinton Abstract, i-f 46);
Ans. 7.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the Specification
"merely provides computational closures as an example of computation
elements." Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 5-6. That is, Appellants submit
that a computational closure, such as the one claimed, is a computational
element, but computational elements are not necessarily computational
closures. Rather, Appellants argue, "[t]he specification defines
'computation closure' as[] 'a particular computation procedure together with
relations and communications among various processes .... "' App. Br. 7
(citing Spec. i-f 29). Appellants further argue "none of the alleged attributes
of Hinton's F-SSO, namely the timestamp, the user's identity, and the
HTTP-based SAML data format assertion, constitute a particular
computation procedure together with relations and communications
among various processes." App. Br. 7.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive. The Specification discloses
that computation closures are a type of computation element, but does not
disclose that all computation elements are computation closures. Spec. i-f 4.
Moreover, the Specification clearly defines the claimed computation closure
as a particular computation procedure together with relations and
communications among various processes:
3
Appeal2014-005929
Application 13/073,696
As used herein, the term "computation closure" identifies a
particular computation procedure together with relations and
communications among various processes including passing
arguments, sharing process results, flow of data and process
results, etc. The computation closures (e.g., a granular
reflective set of instructions, data, and/or related execution
context or state) provide the capability of slicing of
computations for processes and transmitting the computation
slices between devices, infrastructures and information sources.
Spec. i129.
Appellants are entitled to be their own lexicographers and may do so
by clearly providing a definition of a term, in the disclosure itself, "with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants have provided sufficiently
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision in defining the term
"computation closure" such that an artisan of ordinary skill would interpret
the claimed computation closure as "identify[ing] a particular computation
procedure together with relations and communications among various
processes." Spec. i1 29.
The Examiner's findings do not show that Hinton's timestamp, user
identity, or SAML assertions identify a particular computation procedure
together with relations and communications among various processes.
Moreover, we agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 5) that the Examiner's
additional citation to the Hinton F-SSO as a whole as alternatively disclosing
the claimed computation closure (Ans. 8 (citing Hinton Figs. 3, 5-7)) does
not cure the noted deficiency of Hinton. In particular, the Examiner does not
show that the F-SSO process represents a computation closure-an
identification of a particular computation procedure together with relations
and communications among various processes---created in response to an
4
Appeal2014-005929
Application 13/073,696
initiation of a single sign-on authentication session. Therefore, the
Examiner's findings do not show that Hinton discloses "a single sign-on
computation closure created in response to an initiation of a single sign-on
authentication session," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-8, which depend therefrom. We also do
not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 9-20,
which contain similar recitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
5