Ex Parte Malas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

12055007 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/055,007 03/25/2008
83579 7590 08/24/2016
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daryl Malas
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.
0108-US-Ol 7072
EXAMINER
MOOR THY, ARA VIND K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
patent.docketing@level3.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARYL MALAS
Appeal2015-004133
Application 12/055,007
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-004133
Application 12/055,007
l. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, and 4--23. Appellant has previously canceled claim 3. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant the disclosed and claimed invention relates to
a system and method for authorizing and validating user agents based on
user agent location. Spec. i-f 2.
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a request at a registration server from a user agent to
use a communication network, the registration server including
at least one processor;
determining that the user agent 1s not recognized on the
communication network;
requiring submission of location information by the user agent
prior to allowing the user agent to use the network;
receiving the location information from an authorization server;
and
validating a user agent based on the location information to use
the communication network.
2
Appeal2015-004133
Application 12/055,007
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Singh et al. US 2008/0271109 Al Oct. 30, 2008
Claims 1, 2 and 4--23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Singh.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
the Singh reference discloses "requiring submission of location information
by the user agent prior to allowing the user agent to use the network"
(claim 1, emphasis added).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Singh
1. Singh discloses when a user attempts to log in on an electronic
device, the Dynamic Network Authentication Component (DNAC)
references physical location information associated with the user when a
user attempts to log onto an electronic device. Such physical location
information can include information provided by location sensors, readers,
keypads, etc. (i-f 23).
2. A Unified Access Control Component (UACC) uses the physical
access information, along with other information, to determine a level of
network access to be granted, if any, to a particular user based on his
location. (i-f 23).
3
Appeal2015-004133
Application 12/055,007
3. After a user is authenticated and granted access, the UACC
monitors the physical location associated with the user. If the UACC detects
a change in the physical location of the user it communicates such
information to the DNAC. The DNAC determines whether the change in
physical location necessitates a re-authentication. (i-f 26).
4. If the DNAC determines that the change in physical location is
such that re-authentication of the user is desired, then the DNAC can request
that the user re-authenticate before the user can have any further network
address. (i-f 27).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant contends "The Office has failed to establish a prima facie
case of anticipation" with respect to three separate limitations of claim 1.
(App. Br. 6).
First; Appellant contends "Singh does not; however; require
submission of location information by the user agent. Instead, Singh merely
teaches that the UACC can reference physical access information, without
any explicit or implicit teaching of requiring the user agent to submit such
physical access information." (Id.).
Second, Appellant contends "the Office has not established that the
claim limitation 'receiving a request at a registration server from a user
agent to use a communication network, the registration server including at
least one processor' is taught by the Singh reference." (App. Br. 8, emphasis
omitted). Appellant contends the Examiner's citation to paragraph 19 of
Singh doesn't teach this claim limitation because it "makes no reference to
'receiving a request at a registration server' or 'from a user agent to use a
4
Appeal2015-004133
Application 12/055,007
communication network' or "registration server including at least one
processor." (App. Br. 9).
Third, Appellant contends "the Office is incorrect in asserting that
paragraph [0024] of Singh teaches the claim limitation 'determining that the
user agent is not recognized on the communication network."' (App. Br. 9,
emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant argues "Clearly, paragraph
[0024] of Singh makes no reference to a 'determining' action. Thus,
paragraph [0024] of Singh clearly does not teach 'determining that the user
agent is not recognized on the communication network."' (App. Br. 10,
emphasis omitted).
We consider all of Appellant's arguments and evidence presented, and
disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the Examiner's rejections of
the claims. We incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's arguments. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments below.
At the outset, we find Appellant does not present substantive
arguments regarding his second and third contentions. Appellant merely
recites the claim language and then makes conclusory statements that the
reference does not disclose the recited limitations without addressing the
Examiner's specific findings (App. Br. 8-10). That is, other than repeating
the claim language and making conclusory statements, Appellant provides
no evidence on this record to support such assertion that Singh fails to teach
the recited claim language (id.). Our reviewing court guides that such mere
conclusory statements which are unsupported by factual evidence are
5
Appeal2015-004133
Application 12/055,007
entitled to little probative value. Jn re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex
parte Belinne, 2009 WL 2477843, at *3--4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009)
(informative).
Thus, Appellant fails to sufficiently rebut the Examiner's findings. On
this record, we are not persuaded by Appellant's contentions regarding
claim 1 's limitations ( 1) "receiving a request at a registration server from a
user agent to use a communication network, the registration server including
at least one processor"; and (2) "determining that the user agent is not
recognized on the communication network."
Regarding Appellant's first contention, as a matter of claim
construction, we give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997). See e.g., Spec. (i-f 68). A broad but reasonable
interpretation of claim the scope during prosecution is fair to Appellant
because "[A ]pplicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Here, Singh discloses a DNAC that references physical location
information associated with a user provided by location sensors, readers,
keypads of the user device, so the UACC can determine a user's level of
network access. (FF 1-2). When Singh's UACC detects a change in the
physical location of the user, it communicates this information to the DNAC
(FF 3). The DNAC can then request the user re-authenticate before the user
can have access to the network. (FF 4). That is, before the user can have
6
Appeal2015-004133
Application 12/055,007
renewed access to the network, the user needs to re-authenticate and provide
network access credentials. The user's physical location information is
monitored by UACC. If the UACC detects a change in physical location of
the user, the UACC communicates this information to the DNAC. The
DNAC determines whether the change in physical location necessitates a re-
authentication to grant access to the user. (FF 1--4). Thus, based on the
broadest, reasonable interpretation of the claims, we find no error with the
Examiner's reliance on Singh's DNAC's requesting the user to re-
authenticate for disclosing the step of "'requiring submission of location
information by the user agent' prior to allowing the user agent to use the
network." (Ans. 2, Final Act. 3.)
Accordingly, on this record, we find no error regarding the Examiner's
finding of anticipation for the contested limitation of claim 1.
Claim 16
Regarding independent claim 16, Appellant contends:
The Office has failed to show how the Singh reference teaches
the claim element "a notification module configured to notify the
communication device that the communication device is not
recognized, wherein notification that the communication device
is not recognized indicates that location information must be
submitted by the communication device prior to the
communication device using the communication network."
(App. Br. 10-11, emphasis omitted).
Appellant contends Singh instead "merely teaches that the UACC can
reference physical access information, without any explicit or implicit
teaching of notifying the communication device to submit such physical
access information." (App. Br. 11-12).
7
Appeal2015-004133
Application 12/055,007
However, we agree with the Examiner's finding Singh's UACC
notifies the DNAC when a user's physical location changes. (Ans. 4, FF 3).
In particular, the DNAC determines whether the change in physical location
requires re-authentication, and requests (notifies) the user to re-authenticate
before the user can have access. (Ans. 4, FF 4). Thus, we find no error with
the Examiner's reliance on Singh's UACC and DNAC for teaching "a
notification module." Accordingly, we also find no error with the
Examiner's reliance on DNAC's re-authentication request for teaching the
disputed limitation "wherein notification that the communication device is
not recognized indicates that location information must be submitted by the
communication device prior to the communication device using the
communication network."
Based on this record, we agree with the Examiner's finding of
anticipation regarding claim 16.
Appellant does not separately argue claims 2, 4--15, 17-23.
Therefore, these claims fall with claims 1 and 16 from which they variously
and ultimately depend.
V CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--23
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
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).
AFFIRMED
8