Karanbir Singh et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 1, 202014485615 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2020) 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. 14/485,615 09/12/2014 Karanbir Singh 037834.00217/355380- US-NP 6265 141746 7590 04/01/2020 ARENT FOX LLP & MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC 1717 K STREET, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5344 EXAMINER KUMAR, ANIL N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2020 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): USDocket@microsoft.com patentdocket@arentfox.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KARANBIR SINGH, SAURAV SINHA, SANJAY N. MAHIDA, ANDY LIU, GOPINATHAN KANNAN, NATHAN JEFFREY IDE, TONY URECHE, SAINATH NARENDRANATH THADKAL, ALEX RADUTSKIY, ERIC M. JIA, KANNA RAMASUBRAMANIAN, and YIFAN WANG Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 Technology Center 2100 Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and MATTHEW J. MCNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 2 DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1,2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–17, 19, and 20. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Specification summarizes techniques that: may facilitate user account management while also protecting a user’s personally identifiable information (PII) . . . The techniques display a user’s accounts that are available for use with an application. The techniques further provide for passing a hint to the application upon receiving selection of an account, wherein the hint indicates which user account is selected, without divulging to the application any of the user’s PII. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: receiving, from an application, a request for information for available user accounts for use with the application; retrieving the information for the available user accounts, the information being inaccessible to the application; assigning a unique hint to each of the available user accounts; displaying a list of the available user accounts; 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed March 9, 2017, the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed March 22, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed July 27, 2018, and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed September 27, 2018. Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 3 receiving a selection of a user account from the list; and providing a hint to the application, the hint corresponding to the selected user account. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have made, but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). On the record before us, we are unpersuaded the Examiner has erred. Except as noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION Claims 1–17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal (US 8,789,147 B1, issued July 22, 2014) and LeVasseur (US 9,401,900 B2, issued July 26, 2016 and filed April 12, 2012). Final Act. 3–9. Claims 1–4 and 9 Appellant argues claims 1–4 and 93 as a group. Appeal Br. 6–10. We select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues Agarwal and LeVasseur fail to teach the recited step of “providing a hint to the application, the hint corresponding to the selected user account.” Appeal Br. 7–10. More specifically, Appellant contends 3 Appellant additionally argues claims 10–12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 (Appeal Br. 6–10) with this group, but also separately argues these claims (id. at 10–12). We will address these claims later in the decision. Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 4 LeVasseur’s unique message ID assigned to a message and the user key is a number for identifying the user within the eMail2 environment rather than associated with an account. Id. at 9 (citing LeVasseur 8:37–38, 19:19–27). Appellant also argues Agarwal and LeVasseur do not disclose or suggest “assigning a unique hint to each of the available user accounts.” In particular, Appellant argues Agarwal’s historical information is used by a central account manager to select a service provider but does not assign this information to the service provider. Id. at 9–10 (citing Agarwal 9:3–5, 9:8– 14, 9:22–30); Reply Br. 10. ISSUES Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by in rejecting claim 1 by determining that Agarwal and LeVasseur collectively would have taught or suggested (1) “assigning a unique hint to each of the available user accounts” and (2) “providing a hint to the application, the hint corresponding to the selected user account”? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find no error. (1) “[A]ssigning a unique hint to each of the available user accounts” We begin by construing a disputed limitation of claim 1, which calls for “a unique hint” to be assigned “to each of the available user accounts.” During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The Specification discusses Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 5 At 606, the accounts control 112 can assign a unique hint to each of the available user accounts. For example, the number ‘1’ may be assigned to a first user account, the number ‘2’ may be assigned to a second user account, and so on . . . At 612, the accounts control 112 can provide a hint to the application that corresponds to the selected user account. Thus, if the user selects the first user account, then the number ‘1’ can be provided to the application. Spec. ¶ 45, Fig. 6. Thus, “a unique hint” assigned “to each of the available user accounts” can be a number (e.g., 1) and the later recited “hint corresponding to the selected user account” can be the same number (e.g., 1). But, the Specification does not limit the recited “unique hint” or “hint” to either a number or to the same number. For example, the Specification also states a: hint to each saved account . . . can be a number, letter, symbol, character, a combination of one or more of these, or any other suitable identifier that does not divulge any of the user’s PII. However, in some examples, the user’s email or another portion of the user’s PII [(personal identifiable information)] may be used as a hint. In some examples, a combination of PII and non-PII data can be used a hint. The hint can be a globally unique identifier (GUID) or any other suitable type of identifier that is independent of the PII. Spec. ¶ 34. Moreover, the Specification does not define or limit the phrase “user accounts” but does provide examples of “user accounts” to include “web email accounts (Microsoft®, Google®, Yahoo®, AOL®, etc.) that can be used with a mail application.” Spec. ¶ 19. Turning to the rejection, the Examiner relied upon Agarwal to teach “assigning a unique hint to each of the available user accounts.” Final Act. 3 Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 6 (citing Agarwal 9:1–21, Fig. 2 (step 203)). The rejection specifically discusses that Agarwal’s account manager determines information related to a service provider request (Agarwal 9:1–2), including historical information that relates to user accounts and maps this information to “a unique hint” in claim 1. Final Act. 3. Agarwal states the “historical information regard[s] user accounts or user account providers most likely to be used at the service provider. For example, the service provider may store user accounts previously used by the user or similar users, and may provide such information to the central account manager.” Agarwal 9:12–17. Appellant argues Agarwal’s historical information is used by a central account manager to select a service provider, but does not assign this information to the service provider. Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing Agarwal 9:3–5, 9:8–14, 9:22–30). This argument is unavailing. First, claim 1 does not require that the “unique hint” is assigned by an account manager as Appellant appears to contend, but rather merely recites “assigning a unique hint to” the “available user accounts.” Id. at 14 (Claim App.). Second, although not required by claim 1, Agarwal teaches information regarding the user (e.g., the user’s accounts) can be “stored locally at the central account manager.” Agarwal 9:5–8 (emphasis added). Agarwal further teaches its “historical information regard[s] user accounts or user account providers” (id. at 9:12–13 (emphasis added)) and provides examples of this historical information to include user accounts previously used by the user and user accounts supported by the service provider (id. at 9:13–21). Also, although Agarwal does not teach what form the noted information takes, Agarwal suggests the information would contain data, such as letters and symbols that represent user account information (see id. Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 7 at 9:12–21) in the form of a “unique hint” consistent with the Specification (Spec. ¶ 34). Appellant further discusses Agarwal at column 9, lines 22–30. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner has not relied upon this passage to teach the “assigning a unique hint” step. Final Act. 3 (citing Agarwal 9:1–21, Fig. 2 (step 203)). In any event, Agarwal states the selection, in the passage, is just an example or “the selection may be based on a combination of criteria such as those described above . . . .” Agarwal 9:25–27 (emphasis added). On the record and for these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Agarwal teaches and suggests “assigning a unique hint to each of the available user accounts” as claim 1 recites. (2) “[P]roviding a hint to the application, the hint corresponding to the selected user account” The Examiner relied on LeVasseur in combination with Agarwal to teach the “providing a hint” step in claim 1. Final Act. 4–5 (citing LeVasseur, Abstract, 13:44–52, 23:47–52). Appellant argues several times that the recited “hint corresponding to the selected user account” in claim 1 does not require a user to re-enter user account or account login information, such as a user’s PII. Appeal Br. 7 (quoting from Spec. ¶ 12), 9 (quoting from Spec. ¶ 13); Reply Br. 9. Yet, we fail to see this restriction in claim 1. That is, claim 1 recites “providing a hint . . . corresponding to the selected user account,” but does not exclude the hint from being user account or login information. Id. at 14 (Claims App.). Indeed, the Specification supports that a “hint” can include “in some examples, the user’s email or another portion of the user’s PII may be used as a hint.” Spec. ¶ 34 (emphasis added). Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 8 Appellant next argues LeVasseur’s unique message ID is assigned to a message and LeVasseur’s user key identifies a user within an eMail2 environment, but neither are not associated with or mapped to an account. See Appeal Br. 8–9 (citing Spec. ¶ 42). We are not persuaded. LeVasseur teaches various information is provided to an email application when transmitting email messages and more specifically, eMail2 messages. LeVasseur teaches an email client sending an eMail2 message is assigned or provided a unique message ID. LeVasseur 13:44–52. LeVasseur further teaches users are members of the eMail2 system and that eMail2 users of an eMail2 service 110 (e.g., eMail2 user accounts) are identified uniquely by an eMail2 user key and thus each user is provided an eMail2 user key. Id. at 23:47–48. The Examiner elaborates that the unique message ID “includes User Key e2UK” during “message initialization.” Ans. 10. The Examiner explains the unique message ID can hold the eMail2 user key (e2UK). Id. (citing LeVasseur 19:17–34, 32:25–33). LeVasseur states an e2UK is generated during registration and “serves to uniquely identify a user when accessing a particular eMail2 service 110” (e.g., a user account). LeVasseur 19:25–27. Given the above teachings, one skilled in the art would have understood LeVasseur’s e2UK assigned to each eMail2 user of an eMail2 service reasonably corresponds to a user account contrary to Appellant’s assertions. Moreover, LeVasseur further discusses a user providing an eMail1 address or password (e.g., a hint) associated with the eMail2 service during registration, thus providing yet another hint “corresponding to the Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 9 selected user account” to the application as broadly as claim 1 recites. LeVasseur 32:27–33.4 Appellant also discusses various passages found in the Specification. See Appeal Br. 7 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 12–13, 34–35) 9 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 13, 42). However, Appellant has not persuasively shown that claim 1’s language is limited by these passages in the disclosure. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 1969) (stating “[w]e are not persuaded by any sound reason why, at any time before the patent is granted, an applicant should have limitations of the specifications read into a claim where no express statement of the limitation is included in the claim.”). For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2–4 and 9, which are not argued separately. Claims 5, 7, and 8 Appellant argues claims 5, 7, and 8 as a group. Appeal Br. 12. We select claim 5 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “the information for the available user accounts is accessible to an operating system.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). The Examiner relied upon Agarwal to teach claim 5’s limitations. Final Act. 6 (citing Agarwal 2:45–65). 4 The Examiner further argues providing hints “is well-known in the art.” Ans. 11 (citing Hughes, US 2014/0115710 A1). However, Hughes forms no part of the rejection. See In re Hoch, 428, F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970) (“Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a ‘minor capacity,’ there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of the rejection.”) Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 10 Appellant argues Agarwal does not disclose an operating system or querying an operating system. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 12–13. The Examiner acknowledges that Agarwal does not explicitly disclose an operating system but contends that an operating system would be “inherent” to provide a client/server user interface and to perform functions such as logging into a website, authenticating, and querying. Ans. 13 (citing Agarwal 5:1–52, 6:26–48, 7:5–16, Fig. 1). Agarwal’s Figure 1 shows various user devices (e.g., 102–106) and other network devices (e.g., 112, 120), all which inherently contain operating systems in order for the devices to operate. Agarwal 7:5–16, 10:45–11:23 (discussing software programs installed to permit the electronic systems to operate and manage functions), Fig. 1. We therefore determine, on this record, Agarwal suggests user account information is accessible to an operating system. Also, although not relied upon in the rejection, LeVasseur teaches various features (e.g., eMail2 client plug-in 108, eMail2 service 110) are integrated into a user computer’s operating system (LeVasseur 16:64–67, 18:66–19:1), further suggesting “information for the available user accounts is accessible to an operating system” as claim 5 recites is known in the art. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 5 and claims 7 and 8, which are not argued separately. Claim 6 Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites “the application is associated with a lower security level than the information for available user accounts.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). The Examiner relied upon LeVasseur in combination with Agarwal to teach claim 6’s limitations. Final Act. 6 (citing LeVasseur 15:54–62). LeVasseur teaches different Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 11 security policies can be implemented for a network related to emails related to a patient’s health records (e.g., high security for certain information related to a patient or user) versus a network related to non-business communication (e.g., low security for certain applications). See LeVasseur 15:54–62. Appellant argues Agarwal does not disclose claim 6’s features. Appeal Br. 10. We agree. However, as noted above, the Examiner relied upon LeVasseur to teach claim 6’s features. Final Act. 6. Appellant next contends LeVasseur teaches multiple email networks with different security levels, not different security levels within a computer system as claim 6 allegedly recites. Appeal Br. 11 (citing Spec. ¶ 40). Yet, claim 6 does not recite a computer system. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) Rather, claim 6 recites “the application is associated with a lower security level than the information for available user accounts.” Id. (emphases added); see Ans. 12 (stating “there is nothing specific in the claim language that will exclude [a] broad interpretation” and that LeVasseur’s teachings suggests what claim 6 recites). As discussed above, LeVasseur teaches or suggests these recited features. We further agree with the Examiner (Ans. 12) that Appellant discusses features of the account control system that are not claimed (e.g., data stored with accounts control, the operating system, and data store as well as an account control acts a broker between the application and an operating system). Appeal Br. 11 (quoting Spec. ¶¶ 40– 41); Reply Br. 11–12 (same). Claims 10–15 Claims 10–12 and 15 are argued as a group. See Appeal Br. 6–10, 12. We select independent claim 10 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 12 § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For claim 10, Appellant presents the same contentions as those for claims 1 and 5. See Appeal Br. 6–10, 12. We are not persuaded for the above-stated reasons when addressing claims 1 and 5. For claim 13, Appellant argues the same contentions as for claim 6. See Appeal Br. 10–11. We are not persuaded for the above-stated reasons when addressing claim 6. For claim 14, Appellant argues the same contentions as for claim 5. See Appeal Br. 12. We are not persuaded for the above-stated reasons when addressing claim 5. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 10–15. Claims 16, 17, 19 and 20 Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are argued as a group. See Appeal Br. 6– 11. We select independent claim 16 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant presents the same contentions as those for claims 1 and 6. See Appeal Br. 6–11. We are not persuaded for the above- stated reasons when addressing claims 1 and 6. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 16, 17, 19, and 20. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–17, 19, 20 103 Agarwal, LeVasseur 1–17, 19, 20 Appeal 2019-000015 Application 14/485,615 13 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation