Ex Parte Heath et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

10596774 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/596,774 0512512007 Craig Heath
100809 7590 08/15/2016
Core Wireless Licensing Ltd
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 1300
Plano, TX 75024
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.
NC67596-US-NPE 1329
EXAMINER
ABRISHAMKAR, KA VEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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):
ipadmin-core@core-wireless.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG HEATH and LEON CLARKE
Appeal2015-002226
Application 10/596,774
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, NATHAN ENGELS, and
CARL SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 12-25. Claims 4, 9, and 11 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention on appeal relates to a method for secure operation of a
computing device where a user needs to be authenticated before the user is
able to carry out a requested operation on the device. (Spec. 1 ).
Appeal2015-002226
Application 10/596,774
Representative Claim
Claim 1. A method of operating a computing device, the
method comprising:
in response to a request from a user to carry out an operation
using the computing device and for which the identity of the user is
required to be authenticated;
determining the time period since the identity of the user was
last authenticated; and
[L] enabling the requested operation by determining the type of
operation being requested by the user and enabling the operation only
if the determined time period is valid for the type of operation
requested by the user.
(Bracketed matter and emphasis added regarding the contested
limitation, labeled as "L").
Rejections
A. Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 12-14, 18-21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as being anticipated by Ting et al. (US 2004/020517 6 A 1;
pub. Oct. 14, 2004). 1
1 We note both the Examiner and Appellants fail to include claims 18-21,
and 25 in the heading of anticipation rejection A. See e.g., Final Act. 3-5
and App. Br. 1. This omission appears to be a typographical error, as these
claims are rejected by the Examiner under the heading of rejection A (Final
Act. 3--4), and argued by Appellants (App. Br. 4). We interpret this
oversight by the Examiner as a typographical error.
2
Appeal2015-002226
Application 10/596,774
B. Claims 5-7, 15-17, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combined teachings and suggestions of Ting and Olkin et al.
(US 2003/0074552 Al; pub. Apr. 17, 2003).
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of anticipation
rejection A, of claims 1-3, 8, 10, 12-14, 18-21, and 25, on the basis of
representative claim 1. We address the remaining claims rejected under
§ 103 rejection B, infra. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Answer in response to Appellants' arguments (Ans. 2--4). However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our
analysis below.
Rejection A of Independent Claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Issue: Under § 102( e ), did the Examiner err in finding Ting expressly
or inherently discloses contested limitation L: "enabling the requested
operation by determining the type of operation being requested by the user
and enabling the operation only if the determined time period is valid for
the type of operation requested by the user," within the meaning of claim 1?
2 (emphasis added).
2 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
3
Appeal2015-002226
Application 10/596,774
The Examiner finds Ting discloses contested limitation L by
describing a method for "revocation of a user's access to one or more
applications, or requir[ing] a user to reauthenticate their identity ... for
example, [as] initiated by one or more trigger events." (Final Act. 4, quoting
Ting i-f 9).
Appellants contend, "[ w ]hile Ting discloses revocation or
reauthentication that can be initiated by a trigger event and Ting discloses
passage of time as an example of a trigger event, nowhere within the cited
portion of Ting (nor anywhere else in Ting) is there any disclosure or
suggestion of" contested limitation L. (App. Br. 3--4).
Regarding the contested determination of "the type of operation
requested by the user" (claim 1), the Examiner finds (Ans. 2), that Ting's
"user profile contains a set of user privileges defining a user's access and
functionality rights within one or more applications" (Ting ii 11, emphasis
added), and the "reauthentication trigger event may be ... a particular
function initiated by a user" (Ting i-f 43), which requires the method to
determine the type of operation (i.e., a type of operation initiating a
reauthentication), in order to trigger a reauthentication. (Ans. 2-3).
Regarding the contested conditional temporal limitation, the Examiner
explains: "Ting discloses that trigger events, such as the passage of time,
can be stored in the user profile ... which contains a set of user privileges
and functionality rights within one or more applications." (Ans. 3 (citing
Ting i-fi-1 9, 11) (emphasis added)). Thus, the Examiner finds "the time period
for access to that application must not have elapsed (time period has to be
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also, e.g., Spec. 7, last paragraph- 8, first
paragraph.
4
Appeal2015-002226
Application 10/596,774
valid) for access to be granted to that application (enabling the operation),"
thereby disclosing contested limitation L. (Ans. 3--4).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive, because Appellants
merely recite the claim language and allege it is not described (or suggested)
by Ting. (App. Br. 3--4). Such pattern of argument fails to comply with 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim."). 3 Appellants fail to present separate, substantive arguments and/or
evidence traversing the Examiner's specific findings. 4 5
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
(See Ans. 2--4). Ting expressly discloses: "[i]f, in one case, no re-
authentication trigger event has occurred, the user 102 may continue to use
the application(s) 106 [i.e., 'enabling the requested operation' if no trigger
event has occurred] without interruption." (Ting i-f 43). Ting further
describes a "re-authentication trigger event may be, for purposes of
illustration, a particular function initiated by a user or an administrator [or a]
passage of some period of time." (Id.). Thus, we find Ting discloses the
trigger events are a "type of operation being requested by the user" and "the
3 See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.").
4 See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the
appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, ... the Board
may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived.").
5 See Evidence Appendix, "None." (App. Br. 4).
5
Appeal2015-002226
Application 10/596,774
determined time period is valid for the type of operation requested by the
user," within the meaning of claim 1. (emphasis added).
Therefore, on this record, and based on a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's finding of
anticipation with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain anticipation
rejection A of representative claim 1, and rejection A of the associated
grouped claims (not argued separately), which fall with claim 1. See
Grouping of Claims, supra.
Rejection B of claims 5-7, 15-17, and 22-24 under§ 103(a)
Appellants advance no separate, substantive arguments regarding the
remaining claims rejected under§ 103 rejection B. Arguments not made are
considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). To the extent that
Appellants urge the purported "deficiencies of Ting are not cured by Olkin"
(App. Br. 4), we find no deficiencies with Ting, for the reasons discussed
above regarding claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection B
of claims 5-7, 15-17, and 22-24.
Conclusions
For at least these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We find a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's finding of anticipation under rejection A, and also supports the
Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness for the remaining claims rejected under § 103 rejection B. 6
6 Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief rebutting the Examiner's response
to Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief.
6
Appeal2015-002226
Application 10/596,774
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and
12-25.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7