Ex Parte Levergood et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2018

12109443 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/109,443 04/25/2008 Thomas Mark Levergood
26111 7590 12/28/2018
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
3935.0020008 3475
EXAMINER
WINDER, PATRICE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2018 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):
e-office@stemekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS MARK LEVERGOOD,
LAWRENCE C. STEWART, STEPHEN JEFFREY MORRIS,
ANDREW C. PAYNE, and GEORGE WINFIELD TREESE
Appeal2017-001693
Application 12/109 ,443 1
Technology Center 2400
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Non-
Final Rejection of claims 1-19, 27-61, and 69-84. Claims 20-26 and 62---68
are canceled. Appeal Br. 21, 29. An oral hearing was requested (Req. for
Oral Hearing (Nov. 21, 2016)) and scheduled for November 8, 2018
(Notification of Appeal Hearing (Sept. 10, 2018)). However, Appellants
1 Appellants identify Soverain Software LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-001693
Application 12/109,443
waived the oral hearing. Notice of Hearing Response (Sept. 28, 2018). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellants disclose "methods for controlling and monitoring access to
network servers" in which a "user is provided with a session identification
which allows the user to access ... requested file[ s] as well as any other files
within [a] present protection domain." Abstract.
Representative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method of controlling access to protected content within a
content server, comprising:
transmitting session data from a content server associated with a
content server domain to a user computer system that is configured to
store the session data, the session data comprising a session identifier
corresponding to a communication session between the user computer
system and the content server, wherein the session identifier identifies
the communication session, the communication session comprising
one or more service requests from the user computer system to the
content server related to accessing controlled files within a protection
domain located at the content server, the protection domain
comprising a collection of controlled files of common protection
within the content server domain;
receiving, at the content server, a request from the user computer
system to access a controlled file from the collection of controlled
files, the request to access including the session identifier; and
processing, by the content server, the request to access the controlled
file and using the session identifier to determine whether to allow the
user computer system to access the controlled file.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-19, 27---61, and 69-84 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Narasimhalu et al. (US
2
Appeal2017-001693
Application 12/109,443
5,499,298; issued Mar. 12, 1996) ("Narasimhalu") and Dedrick (US
5,768,521; issued June 16, 1998). Non-Final Act. 2-10
FINDINGS OF FACT
Narasimhalu discloses a Sealed Controlled Information (COIN) that
includes "[ o ]riginal information encoded in some digital form; identified by
unique identification IID." Narasimhalu col. 9, 11. 19-20. Specifically, in
establishing "a contract between an Information Provider 10 and an
Information Consumer 30" (id. at col. 10, 11. 14--16), Narasimhalu's
Information Provider generates a Sealed COIN-based on a contract
identifier (CID) that logically associates information such as an information
provider identifier (PID), original content identifier (IID), a device on which
the COIN can be accessed legally (LAD), and a consumer or user identifier
(UID}-and transmits the Sealed Coin to the Information Consumer (see id.
at col. 9, 11. 19-34, col. 10, 11. 16-21). As part of accessing the content, the
Information Consumer makes an access request to the Information Provider
using the contract identifier CID and user identifier UID. See id. at col. 10,
11. 22-24, Fig. 10. "After verifying the information consumer's request ...
the Information Provider 10 generates an Opener ... and transmits the
Opener to the information consumer." Id. at col. 10, 11. 24--28. The
Information Consumer then "presents both the Sealed-COIN received earlier
and the Opener to Controller 48 for accessing the COIN." Id. at col. 10, 11.
29-30. The Controller applies a logical sequence of steps to determine
whether to grant access. Id. at col. 10, 11. 33-34. As part of the Controller's
use of an Opener to access a COIN, "the controller extracts the LAD" and
"checks whether the LAD matches with its own (i.e., the Access Device's)
identification." Id. at col. 11, 11. 24--26.
3
Appeal2017-001693
Application 12/109,443
Dedrick discloses providing a client computer "with a graphic user
interface ( GUI) that allows the end user to participate in the system 10."
Dedrick col. 3, 11. 13-15. The GUI contains fields such as "the user's name
and possibly a password." Id. at col. 3, 1. 17. Providing this information
enables a user to "request information and consume information." Id. at col.
3, 11. 26-27. Narasimhalu, which controls usage of distributed digital
information (Narasimhalu col. 1, 11. 41--42), uses a consumer or user
identifier (UID) in generating and transmitting a Sealed COIN from an
Information Provider to an Information Consumer (see id. at col. 9, 11. 30-
31, col. 10, 11. 16-22).
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER'S
DETERMINATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's determination as
set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken,
and concur with the Examiner's conclusions in light thereof. We have
considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error.
We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 6-19, 27--44, 46, 48---61, and 69-84
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Narasimhalu's Sealed
COIN transmission teaches or suggests transmitting session data comprising
a session identifier from a content server associated with a content server
domain to a user computer system. Non-Final Act. 2-3 (citing Narasimhalu
col. 9, 11. 20-21, col. 10, 11. 11-22). The Examiner relies on Narasimhalu's
Information Consumer request to the Information Provider, and the
Information Provider's transmission of an Opener for use by the Controller
in accessing the content of the Sealed Coin, to teach or suggest receiving, at
4
Appeal2017-001693
Application 12/109,443
the content server, a request from the user computer system to access a
controlled file, the request to access including the session identifier, and
processing, by the content server, the request to access the controlled file.
Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Narasimhalu col. 10, 11. 24--46). The Examiner
relies on the Narasimhalu's Controller determination whether to grant access
to the Sealed Coin to teach or suggest using the session identifier to
determine whether to allow the user computer system to access the
controlled file. Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Narasimhalu col. 10, 11. 32--46).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "how the
Narasimhalu system controls information dissemination is fundamentally
different from the claimed methods and systems." Appeal Br. 6.
Specifically, Appellants argue Narasimhalu's "Sealed-COIN also contains
the controlled information." Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis in original).
Appellants argue "a person skilled in the art (POSA) would have understood
that the transmitted 'session data' as set forth in claim 1 does not contain the
claimed 'controlled file,' encrypted or non-encrypted." Id. at 9; see also
Reply Br. 3 (use of original content identifier IID "does not suggest
exclusion of controlled information in the Sealed-COIN").
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
correctly finds "[i]n its sealed form, the 'digital information' would be
inaccessible and ultimately not useable." Ans. 7-8. Until the Information
Provider transmits an Opener for use by the Controller in accessing the
content of the Sealed Coin, the encrypted digital information would be
inaccessible information still under control of the Information Provider. See
Non-Final Act. 3. Moreover, Narasimhalu's Sealed-COIN contains
additional information-including a contract identifier ( CID }--that
5
Appeal2017-001693
Application 12/109,443
identifies a session (e.g., a contract). See Narasimhalu col. 9, 11. 19-34, col.
10, 11. 16-21; see also Ans. 3 ("The COIN is part of the contractual
agreement between the information provide [ r] and the information
consumer"). Thus, Narasimhalu's Sealed COIN contains more than
encrypted content information; it contains a session identifier. Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner that N arasimhalu teaches or suggests
"transmitting session data from a content server associated with a content
server domain to a user computer system ... the session data comprising a
session identifier," as recited in claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 2-3.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the client device of
Narasimhalu, in accessing the content of the Sealed COIN, "presents the
Sealed-COIN and the Opener to a controller local to the client device."
Appeal Br. 6 ( emphasis in original). Appellant argues that "[b ]ecause
Controller 48 for determining information accessibility is a component local
to the client device, Narasimhalu's server (i.e., Information Server 10) does
not receive a request and process the 'request ... to determine whether to
allow the user computer system to access the controlled file."' Id. at 11
( emphasis in original); see also Reply Br. 6 ("Combining the access device
and Information Provider 10 into one server means that, for presenting the
Sealed-COIN to Controller 48, the client needs to transmit the Sealed-COIN
back to the server for requesting access").
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they are not
commensurate with the scope of the disputed claim limitation, which only
recites the content server processing a request to access the controlled file.
The claimed invention is silent as to whether the content server performs the
step of "using the session identifier to determine whether to allow the user
6
Appeal2017-001693
Application 12/109,443
computer system to access the controlled file." Narasimhalu's Information
Provider receives an access request, which it verifies (i.e., processes) before
generating and transmitting an Opener to the information consumer. See
Narasimhalu col. 10, 11. 22-28. We agree with the Examiner that this access
request verification teaches or suggests "receiving, at the content server, a
request from the user computer system to access a controlled file ... the
request to access including the session identifier" and "processing, by the
content server, the request to access the controlled file," as recited in claim
I. See Non-Final Act. 3.
Because claim 1 does not specify the component that uses the session
identifier, we agree with the Examiner that the determination by
Narasimhalu's Controller 48 whether a contract ID (CID) has expired (i.e.,
whether the contract can still be used for obtaining access to the content)
teaches or suggests "using the session identifier to determine whether to
allow the user computer system to access the controlled file." See Non-Final
Act. 3. Moreover, Narasimhalu's Information Provider's verification of the
Information Consumer's request, which also contains the contract ID,
teaches or suggests the content server using the session identifier to
determine whether to allow access in the claimed manner because: (1) the
verification is performed by the Information Provider, not by the
Information Consumer's local device and (2) verification is a prerequisite to
generation of an Opener that is required to access the content. See
Narasimhalu col. 10, 11. 22-31.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that N arasimhalu, in
combination with Dedrick, teaches or suggests the disputed recitations of
claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
7
Appeal2017-001693
Application 12/109,443
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 6-19, 27--44, 46, 48---61, and 69-84,
which Appellants do not argue separately. Appeal Br. 13.
CLAIMS 3 and 45
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 via intervening claim 2. Claim 2
recites "prompting the user computer system to provide credentials for
accessing the controlled file; and comparing the user supplied credentials to
information stored in a user account associated with the user of the computer
system in order to authorize access to the controlled file."
Claim 3 recites "The method of claim 2, wherein the prompting and
comparing steps precede the step of transmitting session data from the
content server to the user computer system" ( emphasis added).
Claim 45 recites similar limitations.
In rejecting claims 3 and 45, the Examiner finds that Dedrick's use of
user credential information in making a request for electronic information
teaches or suggests modifying Narasimhalu's system to include prompting
and comparing steps that precede the step of transmitting session data from
the content server to the user computer system. See Non-Final Act. 4, 10
( citing Dedrick col. 7, 11. 21-28). The Examiner concludes that an artisan of
ordinary would have recognized that such an ordering "would be the best
implementation to ensure ... control [ ofJ the usage of the distributed digital
information." Ans. 8-9 (citing Narasimhalu col. 1, 11. 39--44).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred by not providing "any
explanations and rationales as to why and how Narasimhalu and Dedrick can
be combined to reach the claimed 'prompting and comparing steps precede
the step of transmitting session data' as set forth in claim 3." Appeal Br. 13.
Appellants do not persuasively rebut, however, the Examiner's reasonable
8
Appeal2017-001693
Application 12/109,443
explanation that an artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized that an
implementation in which a user computer system is promoted to provide
credentials, and the credentials compared with stored information, before
transmitting session data as the "best implementation" for purposes of
ensuring digital distributed digital information is controlled. See Ans. 8-9.
The claimed ordering would have been obvious, in particular, given
that N arasimhalu uses a consumer or user identifier (UID) in generating and
transmitting a Sealed COIN from an Information Provider to an Information
Consumer. See Narasimhalu col. 9, 11. 30-31, col. 10, 11. 16-22. An artisan
of ordinary skill would have recognized that obtaining the UID by
prompting the user for credentials and comparing those credentials to stored
credentials, as taught or suggested by Dedrick (see Dedrick col. 3, 11. 22-26),
before generating and transmitting the Sealed COIN based at least in part on
the UID would provide for better control over the content than generating
and transmitting the Sealed COIN without such prompting and comparing.
Specifically, this particular ordering limits the risk of creating a contract that
identifies a user who has not agreed to the terms of the contract. See
Narasimhalu col. 10, 11. 13-16.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
N arasimhalu and Dedrick teaches or suggests "wherein the prompting and
comparing steps precede the step of transmitting session data from the
content server to the user computer system," as recited in claim 3.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 3 and 45.
9
Appeal2017-001693
Application 12/109,443
CLAIMS 5 and 4 7
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and further recites ( emphases added):
wherein the session data further includes a user
identification associated with the user of the computer system
and a protection domain identification associated with the
protection domain, wherein determining whether to allow the
user computer system to access the controlled file comprises:
determining whether the controlled file is within the
protection domain;
processing the user identification and the protection
domain identification in order to allow access by the user
computer system to the controlled file when the controlled file is
within the protection domain; and
determining that the user computer system must be
authorized before being allowed to access the controlled file
when the controlled file is within the content server domain but
not within the protection domain.
Claim 4 7 recites similar limitations.
In rejecting claims 5 and 4 7, the Examiner finds that N arasimhalu' s
use of fields in an Opener, such as an LAD (the device on which the COIN
can be accessed legally), teaches or suggests: (1) processing user
identification in order to allow access by the user computer system to the
controlled file and (2) determining that the user computer system must be
authorized before being allowed to access the controlled file. See Non-Final
Act. 4--5 (citing Narasimhalu col. 11, 11. 20-30). The Examiner asserts that
in Narasimhalu "the information consumer is distinction from the 'controlled
information access device' [ b ]ecause the information consumer, not the
'access device' enters into the contract the 'UID' provides identification of a
user." Ans. 9.
10
Appeal2017-001693
Application 12/109,443
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "N arasimhalu' s UID
is an identification of the client device (i.e., information consumer), not an
identification of a user." Appeal Br. 13-14.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive, however, because Narasimhalu
identifies both the "information consumer" (UID) and "[t]he device on
which the COIN can be accessed legally" (LAD). See Narasimhalu col. 9, 11.
25-26, 29-30. That is, Narasimhalu's contract logically associates
controlled content with both the information consumer and the device on
which the content can be accessed legally. Id. at col. 9, 11. 31-33.
Moreover, Narasimhalu teaches or suggests using both the UID and the
LAD in determining whether to grant access to controlled content. See id. at
col. 10, 11. 22-27, col. 11, 11. 24--30, Figs. 10, llA-B. Appellants'
arguments, which posit that Narasimhalu only teaches or suggests use of
device identification without also teaching or suggesting use of user
identification in allowing access to a controlled file, are therefore
unpersuasive. See Appeal Br. 14.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Narasimhalu and Dedrick teaches or suggests: (1) "processing the user
identification ... in order to allow access by the user computer system to the
controlled file" and (2) "determining that the user computer system must be
authorized before being allowed to access the controlled file," as recited in
claim 5 and similarly claim 4 7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 5 and 4 7.
11
Appeal2017-001693
Application 12/109,443
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19, 27---61, and
69-84.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
12