Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2016

13445651 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/445,651 04/12/2012
49330 7590
DUKEW, YEE
Yee & Associates, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
03/22/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Su Liu
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.
AUS920100413US2 9369
EXAMINER
HASAN, SYED HAROON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SU LIU and SHUNGUO YAN
Appeal2014-003056
Application 13/445,651
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-003056
Application 13/445,651
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to improved user identifier management in a
data processing system (Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for managing a new user identifier comprising:
responsive to receiving a request to store the new user
identifier, determining whether the new user identifier matches
an existing user identifier according to a number of character
variant matches between respective characters in the new user
identifier and the existing user identifier;
responsive to a determination that the new user identifier
matches the existing user identifier according to the number of
character variant matches between the respective characters in
the new user identifier and the existing user identifier, rejecting
the request to store the new user identifier; and
responsive to an absence of a determination that the new
user identifier matches the existing user identifier according to
the number of character variant matches between the respective
characters in the new user identifier and the existing user
identifier, approving the request.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Keresman, III US 2001/0047281 Al Nov. 29, 2001
2
Appeal2014-003056
Application 13/445,651
Drupal.org, Prevent homographic logins (impersonation), available at
http://drupal.org/node/950228, last visited (hereinafter "Drupal")
Unicode Technical Standard #39, Unicode Security Mechanisms, available
at
http://web.archive.org/web/20091026175242/http://www.unicode.org/report
s/tr39/, last visited (hereinafter "Unicode")
LiveNation.com, Terms & Conditions, available at
http://web.archive.org./web/201006182010145/http://www.livenation.com/h
/terms.html, last visited (hereinafter "LiveNation")
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(a) as
being anticipated by Drupal.
Claims 2, 5, 6, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drupal and Unicode.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drupal and LiveNation.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drupal and Keresman, III.
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
The Examiner finds Drupal discloses all the limitations of
independent claim 1 (Final Act. 2--4). Appellants contend Drupal fails to
disclose the claimed steps of "responsive to receiving a request to store the
new user identifier, determining whether the new user identifier matches an
3
Appeal2014-003056
Application 13/445,651
existing user identifier ... ,"and "responsive to a determination that the new
user identifier matches the existing user identifier ... rejecting the request to
store the new user identifier" (see App. Br. 7-8). We agree with Appellants.
The Drupal reference addresses the problem that "[i]n Drupal, a user
can impersonate someone else by using non-Latin characters in their
usemame. For example, a user named 'admin' can be impersonated by
registering as 'admin' with a Cyrillic small character 'a"' (Drupal, 1). In
order to solve this problem, Drupal provides: "Before allowing a new
account to be created, the name will be checked to see if a similar user
exists" (id.). However, the reference is merely a call for a deliverable
solution, and not an actual technical implementation of a solution to the
described problem. For example, Drupal provides "[t]he deliverable will be
a contributed module compatible with Drupal 7 .x" (Id.) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, because there is no disclosure in Drupal of how to perform a
solution, Drupal does not disclose the specific steps recited in claim 1 of
"responsive to rece1vmg a request to store the new user identifier,
determining whether the new user identifier matches an existing user
identifier according to a number of character variant matches between
respective characters in the new user identifier and the existing user
identifier," and "responsive to a determination that the new user identifier
matches the existing user identifier according to the number of character
variant matches between the respective characters in the new user identifier
and the existing user identifier, rejecting the request to store the new user
identifier."
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and independent claim 4 which
4
Appeal2014-003056
Application 13/445,651
recites commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 3, 7, and 8 for
similar reasons.
The Obviousness Rejections
The Examiner does not show the Unicode, LiveNation, and
Keresman III references cure the deficiencies discussed above regarding
independent claims 1 and 4, from which claims 2, 5, 6, and 9-12 depend.
Therefore, we also reverse the rejections of claims 2, 5, 6, and 9-12.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3,
4, 7, and 8.
Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 5,
6, and 9-12.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12
is reversed.
REVERSED
5