Ex Parte Janakiraman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 3, 2016

12049303 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/049,303 03/15/2008
133905 7590 06/07/2016
IBM CORPORATION- POUGHKEEPSIE (JVL)
C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN
6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT.
AUSTIN, TX 78739
J anani J anakiraman
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.
AUS920050057US2 6625
EXAMINER
JHA VER!, JA YESH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2016 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):
leslie@vI-patents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JANANI JANAKIRAMAN and MARTING. SCHMIDT1
Appeal2015-001265
Application 12/049,303
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claim 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19. Claims 2, 7,
12, 15, 17, and 20 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. See Appeal Brief 2.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed
March 15, 2008 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed
February 4, 2014; (3) the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed June 25, 2014;
Appeal2015-001265
Application 12/049,303
BACKGROUND
Appellants' application relates to a system and method for
dynamically computing a user's dynamic user security value along with a
resource's resource security value, and granting the user access to the
resource based upon the computed values. Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1, 11, and 16
are independent claims. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a resource request from a user, the resource request
corresponding to a resource and including a request condition;
determining, by a processor, which one of a plurality of user
security formulas to select according to the request condition;
selecting, by the processor, one of the plurality of user security
formulas in response to the determination;
computing, by the processor using the selected user security
formula and a user attribute value, a dynamic user security value
that corresponds to the user;
computing, by the processor, a resource security value that
corresponds to the resource;
determining whether to grant the user access to the resource
based upon the dynamic user security value and the resource
security value; and
granting the user access to the resource in response to the
determination.
(4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed August 22, 2014; and (5) the
Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") mailed October 18, 2014.
2
Appeal2015-001265
Application 12/049,303
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
Al-Salqan et al. (hereinafter US 6,687,823 Bl
"Al-Salqan")
Banzhof et al. (hereinafter US 7,278,163 B2
"Banzhof')
REJECTIONS
Feb.3,2004
Oct. 2, 2007
Claims 1, 11, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Al-Salqan. See Final Act. 8-11.
Claims 3---6, 8-10, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Al-Salqan in view of Banzhof. See Final
Act. 11-19.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by the Examiner and Appellants. We have not considered other
possible issues that have not been raised by Appellants or the Examiner and
which are therefore not before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Al-Salqan discloses
"determining, by a processor, which one of a plurality of user security
formulas to select according to the request condition" as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Al-Salqan discloses
"computing, by the processor using the selected user security formula and a
user attribute value, a dynamic user security value that corresponds to the
user," as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal2015-001265
Application 12/049,303
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Al-
Salqan and Banzhof teaches or suggests "wherein the request condition is
selected from the group consisting of a user status, a group membership, a
time-of-day, and a user location," as recited in claim 5?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Al-
Salqan and Banzhof teaches or suggests "[the] method of claim 1 wherein
the selected user security formula includes a login location attribute variable
multiplied by an administrator-specified weighting, the login location
attribute corresponding to a relative login location of the user," as recited in
claim 6?
DISCUSSION
After review of Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's findings
and reasoning, we determine that Appellants have not identified reversible
error in the Examiner's rejection.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection for reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Answer. See generally, Final
Act. 2-11; Ans. 2-14. We add the following for emphasis and
completeness.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies upon Al-Salqan's
authentication system, which allocates a strength and/or a priority to each of
several authentication tests according to a weighted formula set forth at
column 4, authentication formula (1 ), to disclose the determining of "one of
a plurality of user security formulas." Appeal Br. 6-7 (citing Al-Salqan col.
4, 11. 18-57). Examples of Al-Salqan's authentication tests include SSL v
3.0, Kerberos, and a user-provided password. Al-Salqan col. 3, 11. 5-12.
4
Appeal2015-001265
Application 12/049,303
The Examiner finds that one of the authentication tests may be selected by
weighting the other two tests with a zero value according to the weighted
value formula set forth at column 4, authentication formula (1 ). Appeal
Br. 6-7.
Appellants argue "Al-Salqan only discloses use of a single formula,
which is an incrementing formula, in column 4, line 30 to compute a user's
authentication score." Reply Br. 2. We disagree, because authentication
formula ( 1) is not used in and of itself for authentication testing, but rather is
used to determine which of Al-Salqan's authentication tests (e.g., SSL,
Kerberos, or user/password) to implement based on whether one or more
previous tests have succeeded. See Examiner's finding at Ans. 7.
Appellants further argue Al-Salqan does not disclose determining
"which one of a plurality of user security formulas to select according to the
request condition," (emphasis added), as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3.
Specifically, Appellants argue Al-Salqan's incrementing (i.e.,
authentication) formula never computes a value using the test and a user
attribute value, but rather computes a value based only upon the outcome of
the test. Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the set of authentication tests
to be presented to a user by Al-Salqan's authentication formula (1) is "based
on various factors (request conditions) such as who the user is (user role,
group, privileges etc.), and on factors associated with the requested resource
such as level of connectivity, level of resource access required, security
status, document (resource) sensitivity and classification." Ans. 7 (citing Al-
Salqan col. 2 11. 52-67 and col. 6, 11. 15--49). Therefore, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation, Al-Salqan's authentication formula (1) that is
5
Appeal2015-001265
Application 12/049,303
based on these various factors discloses computing a value according to a
request condition.
Accordingly we agree with the Examiner's finding that Al-Salqan
discloses "determining, by a processor, which one of a plurality of user
security formulas to select according to the request condition" as recited in
claim 1. We therefore find issue 1 unpersuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with issue 2, the Examiner finds Al-Salqan's discussion
of providing different resources to different users based on user
characteristics to disclose "computing, by the processor using the selected
user security formula and a user attribute value, a dynamic user security
value," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8 and Ans. 7-8 (collectively citing
Al-Salqan col. 2, 11. 9-24, col. 2, 1. 51- col. 3, 1. 20, col. 4, 11. 18--47, and col.
6, 11. 15-50). Al-Salqan discusses that when multiple users are present,
users who seek access to different portions of a resource may optionally be
presented with different sequences of authentication tests to determine the
portion of the resource to which each user will be granted access. Al-Salqan
col. 6, 11. 15-50. For example, the Examiner finds Al-Salqan's
authentication system considers user attributes when granting access by
granting users access to different portions of a given confidential document
affecting national security based on each user having a different "need to
know." Ans. 8 (citing Al-Salqan col. 6, 11. 15-50).
Appellants argue that "Al-Salqan administers tests to a user and
computes a test score without inclusion of a user attribute value" because
Al-Salqan's connection types "pertain to which test to administer to a user
and has nothing to do with a user attribute value." App. Br. 8. Appellants,
however, provide insufficient evidence the Examiner's finding that Al-
6
Appeal2015-001265
Application 12/049,303
Salqan's authentication system does consider user attributes by granting user
access on a "need to know basis" is erroneous. That is, in the absence of
sufficient evidence or reasoning explaining why, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation, Al-Salqan's consideration of user attributes to
provide access to resources on a need to know basis fails to disclose the
disputed user attribute value, Appellants' argument is unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 3 5 U.S. C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claims 11 and 16, which Appellants argue is patentable for the same reasons.
See App. Br. 8.
Appellants do not make any other substantive argument regarding the
rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, and 19. See App.
Br. 8. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejections of these dependent
claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 5
In rejecting claim 5, the Examiner finds the combination of Al-Salqan
and Banzhof teaches or suggests "wherein the request condition is selected
from the group consisting of a user status, a group membership, a time-of-
day, and a user location." Final Act. 14 (citing Al-Salqan col. 2, 11. 9-24,
col. 2, 1. 51- col. 3, 1. 20, and col. 4, 11. 18--47). Specifically, the Examiner
relies on Banzhof to teach "a user location" and finds Al-Salqan "teaches
that the set of formulae or test to be presented to any user is based on various
factors (request conditions) such as who the user is (user role, group,
status/privileges, past behavior etc. for defining the user authorization level),
and on factors associated with the requested resource such as level of
connectivity, level of resource access required or allowed, security status,
7
Appeal2015-001265
Application 12/049,303
document (resource) sensitivity and classification etc." Ans. 12 (citing Al-
Salqan col. 2, 11. 52----67 and col. 6, 11. 15--49).
Appellants contend that the Examiner errs because "[a]lthough Al-
Salqan may discuss user status, group membership, and time-of-day within
Al-Salqan's specification, Al-Salqan never teaches or suggests using such
items to select a user security formula from a plurality of user security
formulas as claimed." App. Br. 9.
As discussed above, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that the set of
authentication tests to be presented to a user by Al-Salqan's weighted
authentication formula (1), is based on various factors (request conditions)
such as who the user is (user role, group membership, privileges, past
behavior and the like). See Ans. 12 (citing Al-Salqan col. 2, 11. 52-67).
Moreover, Appellants admit Al-Salqan discusses user status, group
membership, and time-of-day. App. Br. 9. We agree, therefore, that Al-
Salqan teaches or suggests a request condition may be "a user status," "a
group membership," and "a time-of-day," as recited in claim 5.
Further, the Examiner notes that "only one of the above request
conditions is required to determine the set of formulae or tests as per the
claimed limitation. Ans. 12. That is, because the enumerated four request
conditions of claim 5 are presented as a Markush group, only one member of
the Markush group need be shown in the prior art for that group as a whole
to be considered to be known, used or described in the prior art for purposes
of an obviousness analysis. In re Skol!, 523 F.2d 1392, 1397 (CCPA 1975);
see also Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'!, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) ("Element (a) is written in Markush form, such that the entire
8
Appeal2015-001265
Application 12/049,303
element is disclosed by the prior art if one alternative in the Markush group
is in the prior art.").
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Al-
Salqan and Banzhof teaches or suggests "wherein the request condition is
selected from the group consisting of a user status, a group membership, a
time-of-day, and a user location," while noting the Examiner demonstrates
that Banzhof teaches "a user location" and Al-Salqan teaches "a user status,"
"a group membership," and "a time-of-day," of the Markush group.
We therefore sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 5.
Claim 6
In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner finds that the combination of Al-
Salqan and Banzhof teaches or suggests "wherein the selected user security
formula includes a login location attribute variable multiplied by an
administrator-specified weighting, the login location attribute corresponding
to a relative login location of the user," Final Act. 15-16 (citing Al-Salqan
col. 2, 11. 9-24, col. 2, 1. 51- col. 3, 1. 20, and col. 4, 11. 18--47). Specifically,
the Examiner finds Banzhof teaches "the selected user security formula
includes a login location attribute variable multiplied by an administrator-
specified weighting, the login location attribute corresponding to a relative
login location of the user." Final Act. 16 (citing Banzhof col. 5, 11. 25-35,
col. 7, 11. 7-51, and col. 8, 1. 57-col. 9, 1. 8).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because "Banzhof never
teaches or suggests using a current login location of a user to determine a
user security value and, therefore, never teaches or suggests 'wherein the
selected user security formula includes a login location attribute variable
multiplied by an administrator-specified weighting, the login location
9
Appeal2015-001265
Application 12/049,303
attribute corresponding to a relative login location of the user' as claimed."
App. Br. 10-11. Appellants further contend the term "geopolitical" is vague
with respect to user location. Reply Br. 4--5.
We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Banzhof discusses evaluating risk based on user location
because Banzhof discusses risk based on human factors such as, but not
limited to, a geopolitical factor. See Banzhof col. 5, 11. 25-35 (cited in Final
Act. 16). We disagree with the contention that Banzhof' s use of the term
geopolitical is vague with respect to user location noting that Banzhof
further clarifies that the risk assessment "evaluates risk factors to each of the
devices based on ... a location from which each of the devices accesses the
computer network and a mobility of each of the devices." Banzhof col. 16,
11. 32-37 (emphasis added).
We therefore sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 6.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 11, and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Al-Salqan.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting 3---6, 8-10, 13, 14, 18,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Al-Salqan in view
ofBanzhof.
AFFIRMED
10