Ex Parte Hinton

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2015

11010228 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte HEATHER MARIA HINTON
_____________

Appeal 2012-008759
Application 11/010,228
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 130. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, computer program product, and
apparatus to more securely bind a register name identifier profile (RNI) in a
federated computing environment between two federated entities. Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method for performing an operation within a federated
computing environment, the method comprising:
Appeal 2012-008759
Application 11/010,228

2
receiving a register name identifier (RNI) request for a
principal from a first federated entity at a second federated
entity within the federated computing environment;
in response to receiving the register name identifier
(RNI) request for the principal, performing an authentication
operation at the second federated entity for the principal;
in response to successfully completing the authentication
operation, registering or modifying within an RNI profile a
name identifier from the received register name identifier (RNI)
request at the second federated entity; and
sending a register name identifier (RNI) response from
the second federated entity to the first federated entity.

REFERENCE

Yared US 2003/0149781 A1 Aug. 7, 2003

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 130 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Yared. Ans. 48.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that Yared discloses “in response to
receiving the register name identifier (RNI) request for the principal,
performing an authentication operation at the second federated entity for the
principal,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 19?
1

1
Appellant makes additional arguments with respect to claims 130.
Appeal Br. 617; Reply Br. 111. We will not address the additional
arguments as resolution of this issue is dispositive of the Appeal regarding
these claims.
Appeal 2012-008759
Application 11/010,228

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Yared discloses each and every limitation of
claims 130. Ans. 48. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Yared
discloses performing an authentication operation at the second federated
entity in response to receiving the register name identifier (RNI) request for
the principal, as required by independent claims 1, 10, and 19. Ans. 5.
However, Appellant argues that Yared discloses authenticating at each node
first and then producing and exchanging handles. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3.
Thus, Appellant contends that Yared does not disclose the proper order, as
claimed. We agree with Appellant.
First, we note that the Examiner’s rejection is an anticipation rejection
and not an obviousness rejection. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that
the reference must disclose exactly what is claimed. Reply Br. 2. The
Examiner has not done so in the proffered rejection.
Second, the Examiner’s citation to MPEP § 2144.04 is misplaced.
Ans. 11. The claims do not just consist of multiple steps, but of steps in a
particularly claimed order. Independent claims 1, 10, and 19, require that
authentication be performed in response to receiving the RNI request. The
Examiner has not shown that Yared discloses or that it would have been
obvious to teach that particular limitation.
Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 130 as anticipated by Yared.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Yared discloses “in response to
receiving the register name identifier (RNI) request for the principal,
Appeal 2012-008759
Application 11/010,228

4
performing an authentication operation at the second federated entity for the
principal,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 19.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–30 is reversed.

REVERSED
kis