AIRWATCH LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2022

2020006532 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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. 15/223,012 07/29/2016 RENE J. OLIVERA W286 (500103-1670) 9500 152577 7590 01/31/2022 Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP (VMW) 3200 Windy Hill Road, SE Suite 1600E Atlanta, GA 30339 EXAMINER LONG, EDWARD X ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2439 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2022 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): docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com ipadmin@vmware.com uspatents@thomashorstemeyer.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RENE J. OLIVERA, ISHAN SRIVASTAVA, and ADITYA PRASAD ____________ Appeal 2020-006532 Application 15/223,012 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC S. FRAHM, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. Appeal Br. 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Airwatch LLC, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006532 Application 15/223,012 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The invention relates to password policies. See Spec. ¶¶ 2-4. In particular, [d]isclosed are various examples for remotely managing passwords using local security policies. A client device can be enrolled with management service. The management service then transmits a password policy requiring a password hint to be defined by the user. A management component executed on the client device can then enforce the password policy by requiring a user to define a password hint in order to access enterprise resources. Abstr. Independent claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a management component executed by a client device, wherein the management component is configured to cause the client device to at least: enroll the client device, through the management component installed on the client device, with a management service; in response to enrollment of the client device with the management service, determine that a local security policy stored by the management component on the client device indicates that a password hint is required to be defined by a user for a local password corresponding to the client device; prompt a user to define the password hint associated with the local password corresponding to the client device; and store the password hint in a registry entry on the client device. Appeal 2020-006532 Application 15/223,012 3 References and Rejections2 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References 1, 2, 6-9, 13- 16, 20 103 Selander (US 2014/0289870 A1, published on Sept. 25, 2014), Donohue (US 2015/0281216 A1, published on Oct. 1, 2015) 3, 10, 17 103 Selander, Donohue, Satagopan (US 6,457,053 B1, issued on Sept. 24, 2002) 4, 11, 18 103 Selander, Donohue, Satagopan, Hoffmann (US 7,668,881 B1, issued on Feb. 23, 2010 5, 12, 19 103 Selander, Donohue, Dubhashi (US 2008/0022281 A1, published Jan. 24, 2008) ANALYSIS Obviousness We have reviewed and considered Appellant’s arguments, but such arguments are unpersuasive. To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer. Further, to the extent Appellant advances new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellant has waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Claim 1 On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. Appellant contends that Selander does not teach 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated July 31, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Mar. 30, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated July 15, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply Brief dated Sept. 15, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-006532 Application 15/223,012 4 in response to enrollment of the client device with the management service, determine that a local security policy stored by the management component on the client device indicates that a password hint is required to be defined by a user for a local password corresponding to the client device; prompt a user to define the password hint associated with the local password corresponding to the client device; as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See Appeal Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 4-6. In particular, Appellant contends that Selander’s spatial pattern does not teach the claimed “password hint.” See Appeal Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 4-6. Appellant has not persuaded us of error. It is well established that during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, but without importing limitations from the specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, Appellant does not contend that the Specification has assigned a special meaning to the claimed “password hint.” Indeed, other than generally referencing that claim term, the Specification does not provide any definition of that claim term. Turning to the rejection, the Examiner finds that Selander’s spatial pattern teaches the claimed “password hint.” See Ans. 3-7. Selander illustrates the user-defined spatial pattern and its relationship with the system-generated password hint in Figures 2a and 2b reproduced below: Appeal 2020-006532 Application 15/223,012 5 Figure 2a, reproduced above, “illustrates an example of a prompt for a spatial pattern, according to some embodiments.” Spec. ¶ 21. Figure 2b, reproduced above, “illustrates an example of a password hint, according to some embodiments.” Spec. ¶ 22. In connections with Figures 2a and 2b, Selander describes the spatial pattern as follows: In the illustrated embodiment, a user presented with prompt 200 may select a spatial pattern (e.g., spatial pattern 205), which comprises an ordered set of four cells of the 2- dimensional grid. As used herein, the term “spatial pattern” refers to any ordered sequence of locations in a space with any number of dimensions. For example, a spatial pattern may be a sequence of one or more lines in any number of dimensions. Appeal 2020-006532 Application 15/223,012 6 Spatial pattern 205 for example, comprises two straight lines through 2-dimensional space, where the two lines define an ordered sequence of four cells in prompt 200. Selander ¶ 48 (emphasis added). In embodiments where prompt 200 is of the form shown in FIG. 2a (i.e., cells are empty), after a user is prompted for a spatial pattern (e.g., using prompt 200) and after the user provides the spatial pattern ( e.g., spatial pattern 205), the system may generate a password hint using the spatial pattern and a set of characters ( e.g., letters, numbers, etc.). For example, the password hint may include an arrangement of characters superimposed on the prompt, such that the characters of the password are superimposed according to the user-defined pattern. FIG. 2b illustrates an example of a password hint 250, according to some embodiments. In the example shown, password hint 250 is an abagram that may correspond to a password hint created in response to a user selecting spatial pattern 205 using prompt 200 of FIG. 2a. Selander ¶¶ 51-52 (emphasis added). The characters of password hint 250 are arranged such that the characters in the password appear according to the selected spatial pattern. For example, if the user selected spatial pattern 205 of FIG. 2a, then the password indicated by password hint 250 is “i8pBnj4u”. When the user sees password hint 250, he may recall the spatial pattern he selected and use that recollection in conjunction with password hint 250 to determine his password. Selander ¶ 55 (emphasis added). As shown above, “after a user is prompted for a spatial pattern (e.g., using prompt 200) and after the user provides the spatial pattern (e.g., spatial pattern 205), the system may generate a password hint using the spatial Appeal 2020-006532 Application 15/223,012 7 pattern and a set of characters (e.g., letters, numbers, etc.).” Selander ¶ 51. “When the user sees password hint 250, he may recall the spatial pattern he selected and use that recollection in conjunction with password hint 250 to determine his password.” Selander ¶ 55. Because the user “may recall the spatial pattern he selected and use that recollection in conjunction with password hint 250 to determine his password” Selander ¶ 55, one skilled in the art would understand that Selander’s spatial pattern acts as a password hint, and thus teaches or suggests the claimed “password hint.” See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (whether a reference teaches a claim limitation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”). Further, Selander explains that “a user is prompted for a spatial pattern (e.g., using prompt 200) and after the user provides the spatial pattern . . . .” Selander ¶ 51. Therefore, Selander teaches “a password hint is required to be defined by a user” and “prompt[ing] a user to define the password hint,” as recited in claim 1. Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Claims 2-20 Appellant provides extensive arguments about independent claims 8 and 15. See Appeal Br. 8-13. We have reviewed such arguments, and they are similar to the arguments discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 8 and 15. Appeal 2020-006532 Application 15/223,012 8 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, as Appellant does not advance separate substantive arguments about those claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 6-9, 13-16, 20 103 Selander, Donohue 1, 2, 6-9, 13-16, 20 3, 10, 17 103 Selander, Donohue, Satagopan 3, 10, 17 4, 11, 18 103 Selander, Donohue, Satagopan, Hoffmann 4, 11, 18 5, 12, 19 103 Selander, Donohue, Dubhashi 5, 12, 19 Overall Outcome 1-20 Appeal 2020-006532 Application 15/223,012 9 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED