Ex Parte Hidalgo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 11, 2012

09859123 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LLUIS MORA HIDALGO and XABIER PANADERO
LLEONART
____________________

Appeal 2009-012442
Application 09/859,123
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and BRUCE R.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012442
Application 09/859,123

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
24-88. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 24 and 50 under appeal read as follows:
24. A method for abstracting from and encapsulating security
information in a communication comprising:
receiving at a security server a communication bound from a
first entity to a second entity over a network;
abstracting the communication to derive an expected value
associated with a parameter to be sent by the second entity to the first
entity in a subsequent request associated with the communication;
generating a token associated with the expected value, the token
configured to allow the comparison of an actual value of the
parameter to the expected value;
encapsulating the token in the communication; and
transmitting the communication to the second entity.

50. A method for validating communications received over a
network, comprising:
receiving at a security server a request bound from a second
entity to a first entity over a network; and
identifying a token encapsulated in the request;
determining an expected value of a parameter associated with
the request based at least in part on the token;
determining the actual value of the parameter associated with
the request;
comparing the actual value to the expected value; and
transmitting the request to the first entity if the actual value
corresponds to the expected value.

Appeal 2009-012442
Application 09/859,123

3
Rejections on Appeal 1
The Examiner rejected claims 24-37, 40-63, and 66-88 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of McCarthy
(US 6,760,844 B1) and Olkin (US 2003/0046533 A1).
The Examiner rejected claims 38, 39, 64, and 65 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of McCarthy, Olkin,
and Wallace (US 2002/0152378 B1).
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 24 because:
McCarthy does not teach or suggest "abstracting the
communication to derive an expected value associated with a
parameter to be sent by the second entity to the first entity in a
subsequent request associated with the communication;
generating a token associated with the expected value, the token
configured to allow the comparison of an actual value of the
parameter to the expected value; [and] encapsulating the token
in the communication" as claimed in claim 24. McCarthy
describes a session level security scheme in which a user
supplies security credentials that are used by a transaction
server to determine the level of access a user requires during the
session. Nowhere does McCarthy describe "abstracting the
communication to derive an expected value." Nor does
McCarthy describe generating a token "configured to allow the
comparison of the parameter to the expected value."
(App. Br. 9-10).

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 25-49 and 51-88. Rather,
Appellants merely repeat or reference the arguments presented for claims 24
and 50.
Appeal 2009-012442
Application 09/859,123

4
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 50 because:
McCarthy does not teach or suggest a method comprising
determining an expected value based in at least in part on a
token encapsulated in a request and then comparing the actual
value in the request to the determined expected value. Instead,
McCarthy compares a set of credentials supplied by a user with
a set of credentials stored on a server to validate a user.
(App. Br. 10-11).
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 24 and 50 as being obvious
because the references fail to teach or suggest the claim limitations at issue?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. 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 set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see
particularly Ans. 21-22 and 28-29). We concur with the conclusion reached
by the Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 24-88 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 24-88 are not patentable.

Appeal 2009-012442
Application 09/859,123

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 24-88 are affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED
tj