Ex Parte Libes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 5, 2018

12367482 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/367,482 0210612009
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
06/07/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Libes
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.
P8138USOO 9997
EXAMINER
NIGH, JAMES D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2018 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL LIBES and ROBERT RAGN0 1
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is HERE Global B.V.
See App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm. 2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to an operator cloud for mobile internet
services. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation
emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of providing traffic information for network
communications, the method comprising:
receiving a user request from a subscribing user's device for
content from a publisher at an operator of a set of multiple
operators;
generating a unique request identifier associated with the
user request by the operator by performing encryption
based on a user identifier of the user request, the unique
request identifier being associated only with the particular
user request;
receiving a network communication at an operator cloud
computer from the operator, the network communication
sent by the operator in response to the user request;
producing accumulated traffic information at the operator
cloud computer, the accumulated traffic information
relating to the user request received by the operator and
relating to a plurality of previously received user requests,
each of the plurality of previously received user requests
having been sent to the operator cloud computer by one of
the multiple operators in response to a respective user's
request for content, each of the respective user requests
having an associated unique request identifier generated
2 We refer to the Specification filed Feb. 6, 2009 ("Spec."); the Final Office
Action, mailed Feb. 25, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed July 25,
2016 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed Oct. 28, 2016 ("Ans.");
and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 22, 2016 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
by the respective operators by performing encryption
based on a user identifier of each respective user request,
the unique request identifier being associated only with the
particular respective user request;
generating, at the operator cloud computer, metrics relating to
the accumulated traffic information;
providing the user request for content to the publisher, the
user request including the associated unique request
identifier;
retrieving the requested content from the publisher at the operator
cloud computer;
providing the retrieved requested content from the operator cloud
computer to the operator, in response to the received network
communication; and
providing the generated metrics relating to the accumulated traffic
information, and the associated unique user request identifier,
from the operator cloud computer to the operator, such that the
provided metrics are lacking identification of the user
associated with the subscriber account based on the unique user
request identifier.
REFERENCE
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Spalink US 6,983,379 Bl
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Jan.3,2006
Claims 1, 3, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Final
Act. 5-7.
Claims 5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 7-8.
3
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Spalink. Final Act. 8-10.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Except as may be indicated below, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 2-10, Ans. 2-8) and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief
(Ans. 8-20) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following for emphasis.
ANALYSIS
35 USC§ 101 Rejection-Software Per Se
Section 101 defines patentable subject matter: "[ w ]hoever invents or
discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the Examiner determines these claims encompass software per se
and, thus, are not within one of the four classes of statutory subject matter.
Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 5. Appellants do not address this basis of the rejection.
Instead, claims 5, 7, and 8 are addressed along with claims 1, 3, and 4,
which, although falling within one of the four statutory classes, are rejected
as being directed to an abstract idea under the judicial exception to 3 5
U.S.C. § 101. App. Br. 6-18. Nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner in
4
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
finding claims 5, 7, and 8 include subject matter that does not fall within any
of the four classes of statutory subject matter, i.e., pure software.
For all statutory categories, except process claims, the eligible subject
matter must exist in some physical or tangible form. See Digitech Image
Tech., LLC v. Elec. For Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
A claim that is directed to software and is not otherwise limited to one of the
four statutory categories, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition
of matter, is non-statutory subject matter. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.,
550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007) ("Abstract software code is an idea without
physical embodiment. .. . ");In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2106 (I) (noting a computer program per se is ineligible
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (citing Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 72 (1972)).
That is, "software" per se is not within any of the four statutory categories
and is not patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim 5 recites "[a Jn operator cloud computer system that provides
traffic information for network communications, the system configured to
[perform a series of receiving, generating, producing, and retrieving steps]."
Appellants disclose "[i]n one implementation, the operator cloud can be
provided as a software application installed at an operator's router or
gateway equipment and aggregation functions can be provided at a Web
console application." Spec. i-f 10. Furthermore, the system may include
instructions in a machine-readable media including transmission media
"tak[ing] the form of waves (including, without limitation, radio, acoustic,
and/or light waves, such as those generated during radio-wave and infra-red
data communications)." Spec. i-f 50. Therefore, the Specification discloses
that the claimed invention may be wholly software. Further, the claims do
5
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
not recite any physical structure that stores or executes the software
implementation, and, therefore, the claimed software is not directed to any
one of the statutory classes, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture or
composition of matter.
Because Appellants have not demonstrated claims 5, 7, or 8 belong to
any of the four patentable categories of 35 U.S.C. § 10 I-that is, process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter-we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory
subject matter.
35 USC§ 101 Rejection -Judicial Exception
Although claims 1, 3, and 4 recite a method that falls within one of the
four patentable categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Supreme Court has "long
held that this provision contains an important implicit exception" that
"[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable."
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70
(2012) (quotation omitted). To determine patentable subject matter, the
Supreme Court has set forth a two part test.
Step 1 - Whether the Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea
"First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts" of "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
"The inquiry often is whether the claims are directed to 'a specific means or
method' for improving technology or whether they are simply directed to an
abstract end-result." RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322,
1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
6
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
A court must be cognizant that "all inventions at some level embody,
use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
abstract ideas" (Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71), and "describing the claims at ... a
high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all
but ensures that the exceptions to§ 101 swallow the rule." Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, "the claims
are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a
whole is directed to excluded subject matter." Internet Patents Corp. v.
Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The Examiner concludes claim 1 is "directed towards the judicial
exception regarding an abstract idea involving an algorithm for providing
anonymized metrics regarding requests and usage of content" (Final Act. 2)
and to "the provision of collectivized and anonymized data which is merely
a combination of an 'idea of itself' in conjunction with what must be viewed
as an algorithm not used in any practical application" (Final Act. 6 (citations
omitted)). Concerning claim 5, 3 the Examiner concludes it is directed to the
abstract ideas of "receiving a user request for content, generating a unique
identifier by performing encryption, receiving a communication, producing
traffic information, generating metrics relating to the traffic information,
providing the user request for content to a publisher, retrieving content,
3 Claims 5, 7, and 8 are indicated to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
falling outside of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject
matter (Final Act. 8) but are not listed among the claims falling within the
scope of a judicial exception (see Final Act. 5-7). However, to the extent
these claims are argued as falling outside the judicial exception (i.e., an
abstract idea without significantly more), we analyze and address claims 5,
7, and 8 on the basis of representative claim 1.
7
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
providing the content and providing the metrics relating to the traffic
information." Ans. 14.
Appellants contend claim 1 is "not drawn to an abstract idea or law of
nature, but to [a] method, which includes a specific sequence of physically,
manipulative steps." App. Br. 7 (quoting the steps of claim 1 ). Appellants
argue the steps of claim 1 "add significantly more to the alleged abstract idea
regarding the provision of content and the calculation of statistical
information regarding the provision of content." App. Br. 8. According to
Appellants, the claims "require a specific computer [implementation] with
access to such information" and other abilities. 4 Id. In particular,
Appellants argue the claims, rather than directed to an abstract idea, are
"directed to improving the computer-related technology of better tracking of
web traffic." App. Br. 13.
The Examiner responds, finding the claims do not recite a practical
application for the resultant accumulated traffic information or the generated
metrics. Ans. 3. Therefore, according to the Examiner, the claims are
"directed towards the judicial exception regarding [(i)] an abstract idea
regarding the provision of collectivized and anonymized data which is
4 Appellants include further argument based on features neither required by
the claims nor disclosed in the Specification including, for example, the
"ability to create the social network through user information comparison as
well as provide communication capabilities to provide for the stated
advantages of better adherence to treatments, increased mental health of
patients, and greater knowledge base for a patient." App. Br. 8. Because we
are unable to find any disclosure or prior discussion of the argued features,
these arguments appear to be non sequitur and we consider their inclusion in
the instant Appeal Brief to be harmless clerical error.
8
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
merely a combination of an 'idea of itself'[5J in conjunction with [(ii)] ... an
algorithm not used in any practical application.[6]" Ans. 4 (inline citations
moved to footnotes). The Examiner further finds the claims "merely recite[]
aggregating data from customers of a plurality of operators to produce a
composite work for use by the operators [such that the claims] can also be
viewed as a fundamental economic practice. [7J" Id.
Appellants' contentions do not persuade us the Examiner improperly
concluded the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Instead of using a
definition of an abstract idea, "the decisional mechanism courts now apply is
to examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can
be seen-what prior cases were about, and which way they were decided."
Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-
54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ); accord United States Patent and Trademark Office,
July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility 3 (July 30, 2015),
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/ documents/ieg-july-2015-
update.pdf (instructing Examiners that "a claimed concept is not identified
as an abstract idea unless it is similar to at least one concept that the courts
have identified as an abstract idea."). As part of this inquiry, we must "look
at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the
claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter."
5 Citing Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2011) and Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group,
Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
6 Citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) and Parker v. Flook, 437
U.S. 588 (1978).
7 Citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
9
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citations omitted).
Our reviewing court has concluded that abstract ideas include the
concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data
set, and storing the data in memory. Content Extraction & Transmission
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d
1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection,
storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea").
Additionally, the collection of information and analysis of information (e.g.,
recognizing certain data within the dataset) are also abstract ideas. Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and
manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Our
reviewing court has also concluded that acts of parsing, comparing, storing,
and editing data are abstract ideas. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881F.3d1360,
1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Furthermore, merely combining several abstract ideas does not render
the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1327 ("Adding
one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea ... does not render the
claim non-abstract."); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839
F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining the pending claims were
directed to a combination of abstract ideas).
Here, Appellants' claims generally relate to monitoring user
information requests to collect anonymized tracking data about traffic to and
from publishers. See, e.g., claims 1 and 5. The information is used to
10
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
generate metrics relating to the traffic information and the metrics are
provided to the operator. Appellants describe the invention as providing
improved tracking of mobile user traffic to web publishers, advertisers,
operators, and users. Spec. i-f 8. Thus, the claimed limitations of receiving,
generating, producing, and providing information are similar to the abstract
ideas of collecting, analyzing, and manipulating data found to constitute
abstract ideas. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Elec. Power,
830 F.3d at 1353. Additionally, the limitation providing generated metrics is
similar to the abstract ideas of recognizing certain data within the collected
data, analyzing the data, and comparing the data. See, e.g., Berkheimer, 881
F.3d at 1366; Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874
F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding claims directed to the functional
results of accumulating, converting, and monitoring records manipulate data
but fail to do so "in a non-abstract way" (citing Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at
1258-59)). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2 - Whether the Claims Amount to Significantly More than the Abstract
Idea
Because we determine the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we
analyze the claims under step two of Alice to determine if there are
additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure
the claims amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 76-77)). The implementation of the
abstract idea involved must be "more than [the] performance of 'well-
understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the
11
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
industry."' Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347--48 (quoting Alice, 134 S.
Ct. at 2359) (alteration in original).
Quoting the method steps recited in claim 1, Appellants argue the
independent claims "incorporat[ e] additional limitations that amount to more
than an abstract idea of providing metrics for accumulated traffic" (App. Br.
11) without further explanation other than to assert "claim 2 Example 21 of
the July 2015 USPTO Examination Guidelines for Computer-Based
Inventions ... supports Appellants' position that the claims define
patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101" (App. Br. 9). This
argument is unpersuasive for lack of sufficient analysis explaining why the
example is applicable. Furthermore, exemplary claim 2 was not found
patent-eligible merely because it provided a particular useful application nor
would that alone have been sufficient for patent-eligibility. See
CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371 ("The Court [in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.
584 (1978)] rejected the notion that the recitation of a practical application
for the calculation could alone make the invention patentable."). Instead,
exemplary claim 2 was deemed patent-eligible because it addressed an
Internet-centric challenge, i.e., alerting a subscriber with time sensitive
information when the subscriber's computer is offline (App. Br. 11).
Although Appellants' method avoids the use of cookies and users' IP
addresses, thereby being suitable for mobile devices (Spec. i-fi-13, 6), the
claims make no mention of the Internet (as is the case in exemplary claim 2)
and Appellants fail to identify any claimed technological features or
limitations (e.g., using a wireless communication channel as in exemplary
claim 2) that provide a solution to the problem of collecting anonymized
tracking data about traffic to and from publishers' addresses.
12
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
Appellants further argue the court's decision in Enfzsh is applicable to
the present claims. App. Br. 12. The Examiner responds finding
Appellants' "argument relies on strapping the word 'technology' to a
fundamental economic practice 'tracking of web traffic' and repeated use of
the term 'technological challenge'." Ans. 17. According to the Examiner,
"Appellant[s] confuse[] a concept related to the organization of human
activity i.e. privacy with technology." Id.
Appellants' analogy to Enfish is unpersuasive in demonstrating the
claims include significantly more than the abstract idea of monitoring user
information requests to collect anonymized tracking data about traffic to and
from web publishers. In Enfish, the Federal Circuit relied on the distinction
made in Alice between improvements to computer functionality and uses of
existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on "abstract ideas."
See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. The
present case is different from Enfish because the focus of the claims here is
not on an improvement in computers as tools or upon an innovative way to
use computers or other devices; but, instead, the claims are directed to an
abstract idea that uses generic and routinely used computer equipment as
tools. That is, here, the arguably innovative technique of claim 1 is
inextricably a part of the abstract idea of collecting and manipulating data
itself. Moreover, nothing in the claims, understood in light of the
Specification (see, e.g., Spec. Fig. 8, i-fi-1 42--47), requires anything other than
off-the-shelf, conventional computer equipment used for collecting and
processing/analyzing various information/data.
Appellants further argue the claims encompass a sufficient inventive
concept, namely, "a non-conventional/non-generic arrangement which
13
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
provides for a more efficient application of computer resources" as in
Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2016)). App. Br. 17. Similar to the argument relying on Enfish,
however, Appellants' argument simply repeats the holdings of Bascom,
without attempting to demonstrate how Appellants' invention is analogous
to the claims in that case, or how that case otherwise supports Appellants'
argument. App. Br. 17-18.
We, like the Examiner (Ans. 17-18), find Appellants' claims are
dissimilar to the claims at issue in Bascom, which were directed to technical
improvements in a computer or network. See Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350
("hamess[ing] this technical feature of network technology in a filtering
system" to customize content filtering). Appellants' invention, in contrast, is
performed by standard, generic data processing and storage elements. Spec.
Fig. 8, i-fi-142--47. The use of such generic computing elements "do[es] not
alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject
matter." FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR
Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner erred in
determining the claims do not include additional limitations that
individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to
"significantly more" than the abstract idea under step 2 of the Alice/Mayo
analysis.
For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded by Appellants'
arguments that the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception
and, in any case, include significantly more than an abstract idea. Therefore,
14
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 under a judicial exception to 3 5
U.S.C. § 101.
Anticipation Re} ection
The Examiner finds all pending claims are anticipated by Spalink
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Final Act. 8-10. Appellants contend Spalink
only discloses "'unique identifier 203 being created from a user name 201
and a key 204' which is clearly not consistent with a 'particular user
request"' as required by the disputed limitation of generating a unique
request identifier associated with the user request by the operator by
performing encryption based on a user identifier of the user request, the
unique request identifier being associated only with the particular user
request. App. Br. 21. Appellants argue Spalink's unique identifier 203,
even if used in connection with requests for content made by that user, does
not disclose requests for content, each request having a unique request
identifier. Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner responds, finding the argued feature is found, not in the
claim, but in the Specification. Ans. 18. The Examiner finds "[ t ]he claim
itself contains a form of self-contained definition as to how a 'unique request
identifier' is generated i.e. by 'performing encryption based on a user
identifier of the user request' and recites no other operation that adds any
basis to the result language 'being associated only with the particular user
request'." Id. That is, the argued claim language is merely a desired result
and, in any case, does not support Appellants' argument when broadly
construed. Id.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error. As indicated
by the Examiner, "it is impermissible during examination to read limitations
15
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
from the disclosure into the claims." Ans. 19 (citing In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). In particular, during examination, claims
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004). "Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not
unfair to the applicant ... because the applicant has the opportunity to
amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage." Id.
The disputed limitation only requires "generating a unique request
identifier ... by performing encryption based on a user identifier of the user
request, the unique request identifier being associated only with the
particular user request." There is neither a requirement for more than a
single user request nor that the unique identifier be unique to each one of a
plurality of user requests. Instead, the limitation is satisfied by generating
the unique request identifier "by performing encryption based on a user
identifier." Thus, under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the disputed
limitation, Spalink's unique identifier 203 created from user name 201 and
key 204 using the Secure Hashing Algorithm discloses the disputed
limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and, for the same
reasons, the rejection of independent claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Spalink together with the rejection of dependent claims
3, 4, 7, and 8, which are not argued separately with particularity.
16
Appeal2017-003644
Application 12/367,482
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
17