Karanbir Singh et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2020

14485615 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 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.
14/485,615 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