Traitware, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 2, 20212020003610 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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. 15/111,778 07/14/2016 Herbert W. Spencer T6047-2041 [KLB] 8418 62993 7590 09/02/2021 BUCHALTER 18400 VON KARMAN AVE. SUITE 800 IRVINE, CA 92612 EXAMINER LYNCH, SHARON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2438 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2021 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): docketing.buchalter@clarivate.com ipdocket@buchalter.com kbarnes@buchalter.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HERBERT W. SPENCER, CHRISTOPER M. CANFIELD, VINCENT CONROY, and TODD HICKERSON Appeal 2020-003610 Application 15/111,778 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, 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 41–50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 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 Traitware, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003610 Application 15/111,778 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 41 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis added): 41. A method to access a secure resource on a resource server, the method comprising: (a) requesting access to the secure resource with an access application on a device and receiving a login page from an authentication server on the device; (b) using the login page, requesting access to the secure resource and transmitting the access request to an authentication application on the device; (c) authenticating the device with the authentication server; (d) receiving an authorization code on the device from the authentication server; (e) transmitting the authorization code from the device to the resource server for transmission to the authentication server; and (f) accessing the secure resource with the device access application after the authorization code is verified by the authentication server. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Shakkarwar US 2009/0228370 A1 September 10, 2009 Guo et al. US 2011/0247055 A1 October 6, 2011 REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 41–50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Shakkarwar and Guo. Final Act. 8– 16. Appeal 2020-003610 Application 15/111,778 3 We select claim 41 as the representative claim for this rejection. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 41 are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 42–50 further herein. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is taken (Final Act. 8–16); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3–10) in response to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. The Examiner found the combination of Shakkarwar and Guo teaches or suggests, inter alia, limitations (d), (e), and (f) of claim 41, as referenced above in the “CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER” section. See Final Act. 9– 10. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. More specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Shakkarwar discloses a computer security system, where an authentication server identifies and verifies a user engaging in a secured payment transaction with a payment webpage of an online merchant via a security agent and also creates a one-time use personal account number, and where the one-time personal account number teaches the claimed “authorization code” recited in claim 41. See Final Act. 8–9 (citing Shakkarwar ¶¶ 43–44, 46, 49, 52–53); see also Ans. 3–4 (citing Shakkarwar ¶ 55). As further found by the Examiner, Shakkarwar additionally discloses that the user subsequently Appeal 2020-003610 Application 15/111,778 4 sends the one-time personal account number to a payment processor, where the payment processor sends the one-time personal account number to the authentication server, and where the secured payment transaction is ultimately completed. See Final Act. 9 (citing Shakkarwar ¶¶ 42, 51, 53, 55–56); see also Ans. 4 (citing Shakkarwar ¶¶ 52, 55–56). We further agree with the Examiner that Guo discloses an authentication system including a user device, an account authority service, and an e-commerce server, where the account authority service verifies the user’s device credentials and provides a security token to the user device, and where the user device subsequently forwards the security token to the e- commerce server in order to gain access to the e-commerce server. See Final Act. 10 (citing Guo ¶¶ 13, 21–22, 35, 39); see also Ans. 4–5 (citing Guo ¶¶ 14, 15, 21–22, 35). Further, we also agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shakkarwar’s computer security system to incorporate the disclosure of verifying the security token after the user provides the security token to the e-commerce server in order to strengthen the computer security system disclosed in Shakkarwar by requiring both the payment processor and the authentication server to independently verify the authenticity of the one-time personal account number. See Final Act. 10; see also Ans. 7–8. Appellant argues Shakkarwar does not describe verification of the one-time use personal number by the payment processor, institution server, or any other part of its system, and thus, does not teach or suggest “accessing the secure resource with the device access application after the authorization code is verified by the authentication server,” as recited in claim 41. See Reply Br. 2–7; see also Appeal Br. 4–6. This argument is not Appeal 2020-003610 Application 15/111,778 5 persuasive as the Examiner relied upon Guo rather than Shakkarwar as teaching or suggesting “after the authorization code is verified by the authentication server,” as recited in claim 41. Thus, Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection as it addresses Shakkarwar individually rather than the Examiner’s combination of Shakkarwar and Guo. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant further argues there is no reason to combine Shakkarwar with Guo as both references disclose the same two-factor authorization, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the temporary account number of Shakkarwar into another layer of authentication. See Reply Br. 7–9; see also Appeal Br. 3–4, 7. This argument is not persuasive either. The Supreme Court has rejected the rigid requirement of demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references in order to show obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co., v. Teleflex Co., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Instead, a rejection based on obviousness only needs to be supported by “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to combine known elements in the manner required by the claim. Id. at 418. As the Examiner found: Guo is not being cited to teach modifying the temporary account number of Shakkarwar into another layer of authentication, but rather in order to teach that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the authentication method of Shakkarwar to incorporate Guo’s method of verifying the authorization code at the server after verifying the authorization Appeal 2020-003610 Application 15/111,778 6 code at the account service in order to ensure that the authorization code is still valid/unexpired when it reaches the authentication server and [has] not been modified/tampered with after transmission from the payment processor. Ans. 5 (emphasis added). We conclude that the Examiner’s articulated rationale for combining the cited references satisfied the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in KSR. Appellant additionally argues Guo fails to teach or suggest verification of a security token by its e-commerce server. See Reply Br. 9; see also Appeal Br. 7. This argument is not persuasive either. Guo discloses that “the secure server [i.e., the e-commerce server] interrogates the security token to determine whether both user credentials and device credentials were included in the authentication with the account authority service.” Guo ¶ 39. We agree with the Examiner that this interrogation teaches “the authorization code is verified by the authentication server,” as recited in claim 41. See Final Act. 10; see Ans. 4–5. CONCLUSION The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 41–50 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 41–50 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 41–50 103 Shakkarwar, Guo 41–50 Appeal 2020-003610 Application 15/111,778 7 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