Ex Parte Metke et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2016

12942374 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/942,374 11/09/2010
22917 7590 06/14/2016
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
IP Law Docketing
1301 EAST ALGONQUIN ROAD
IL02 5th Floor - SHS
SCHAUMBURG, IL 60196
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anthony R. Metke
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.
CM13307 1554
EXAMINER
MEJIA, FELICIANO S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2016 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):
USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY R. METKE, ERWIN HIMAWAN,
and SHANTHI E. THOMAS
Appeal2014-008753
Application 12/942,374
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-26. Br. 12-17. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed ("Br.") filed March
14, 2014; Examiner's Answer mailed June 5, 2014 ("Ans."); the Advisory
Action mailed January 6, 2014 ("Adv. Act."); the Final Office Action mailed
October 11, 2013 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed November
9, 2010 ("Spec.").
2 Appellants identify Motorola Solutions, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-008753
Application 12/942,374
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below (with disputed limitations in italics):
1. A certificate policy management tool suite, comprising:
a plurality of PKI management components including:
at least one processor comprising:
a certificate policy parser operative to parse standard
certificate policies into allowable combinations of certificate
policy options meeting predetermined constraints;
a certificate policy creation engine operative to create
customized certificate policies;
a certificate policy query engine operative to generate a
PK! management rule set based on the customized certificate
policies;
an audit engine operative to audit the customized
certificate policy to verify conformance with the predetermined
constraints set by the standard certificate policies; and
wherein the certificate policy parser, the certificate policy
creation engine, the certificate policy query engine, and the
audit engine interoperate to automate certificate policy creation,
interpretation, assessment, and enforcement.
2
Appeal2014-008753
Application 12/942,374
References
Anderson et al. US 7,478,419 B2 Jan. 13,2009
("Anderson")
Kapoor US 7,610,484 B2 Oct. 27, 2009
Huang et al. US 7,640,429 B2 Dec. 29, 2009
("Huang")
Cross et al. US 7,703,128 B2 Apr. 20, 2010
("Cross")
Martherus et al. US 7,814,536 B2 Oct. 12, 2010
("Martherus ")
Hemoud et al. US 2011/0314515 Al Dec. 22, 2011
("Hemoud")
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapoor and Huang. Final Act. 3-8.
Claims 3---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kapoor, Huang, and Hemoud. Final Act. 8-11.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kapoor, Huang, and Anderson. Final Act. 11-12.
Claims 10, 11, 14--16, 19-21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kapoor, Huang, and Martherus. Final
Act. 12-22.
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kapoor, Huang, Martherus, and Cross. Final Act. 22-26.
Claims 22 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kapoor, Huang, Martherus, and Hemoud. Final Act. 26-
27.
3
Appeal2014-008753
Application 12/942,374
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred. See App. Br. 5-10. We are not persuaded
by Appellants' arguments. We highlight and address specific arguments and
findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Huang teaches "a
certificate policy query engine operative to generate a PK.I [(Public Key
Infrastructure)] management rule set based on the customized certificate
policies," as recited in claim 1. Br. 5. In particular, Appellants argue Huang
teaches a PKI credential management infrastructure used/utilized to
authenticate a user for access to resources based on role based access control
policies. Br. 5 (citing Huang col. 11, 11. 47----67). Appellants further assert
that the utilization of the PK.I credential management infrastructure does not
teach generating it based on the role based access control policies. Br. 6.
Rather, Appellants contend Huang teaches away from the disputed
limitation. Br. 6. Appellants additionally dispute the Examiner's findings
that Huang's system creates customized access policies. Br. 6 (citing Huang
Fig. 2, col. 4, 11. 1-23, Fig. 9, col. 22, 11. 25-35). Appellants argue Huang
does not teach these customized access control policies as a basis "to
generate a PK.I management rule set," as recited in the claim. Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds Huang
teaches parsing individual policy statements into an internal representation
used by the decision entity for rendering authorization decisions. Ans. 3
(quoting Huang col. 6, 11. 40-46). In particular, Huang discloses: "The
police store 108, or engine, parses these individual policy statements into an
internal representation more useful for combination into a coherent overall
4
Appeal2014-008753
Application 12/942,374
set of policies. Then, the decision entity 106 uses the resulting internal
representation for the efficient rendering of authorization decisions." Huang
col. 6, 11. 41--46. We find Huang's disclosures of parsing policy statements
into "internal representation used ... for the efficient rendering of
authorization decisions," taught in Huang (col. 6, 11. 41--46), to be consistent
with Appellants' description of the certificate policy query engine
"generat[ing] a PK.I Management rule set or policy control object from ...
the operational policy database." Spec. p. 10, 11. 10-13, cited at Br. 4.
Furthermore, the Examiner finds Huang teaches customized certificate
policies as a basis for generating a PKI management rule set. Final Act. 5
(citing Huang col. 11, 11. 4 7-67). In particular, Huang teaches "Attribute
Certificates (ACs) 130 that bind[] the role of the user 126 to the user 126."
Huang col. 11, 11. 55-56. The Examiner further finds Huang teaches these
customized certificate policies include assigning entitlements to roles of a
user and assigning roles to individual users. Adv. Act. 2 (citing Huang col.
4, 11. 1-23). We are not persuaded of error in these findings of the
Examiner, which are supported by the disclosure of Huang.
Appellants' teaching away argument is unavailing because Appellants
have merely alleged differences in the teachings of the art, rather than
directed us to disclosure that discredits generating a PK.I management rule
set. See In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The prior art's
mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching
away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed ... ").
Furthermore, as explained above, we do not agree with Appellants'
5
Appeal2014-008753
Application 12/942,374
characterization of Huang as teaching only utilizing, rather than generating
and utilizing, a PK.I rule set.
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Huang teaches
"an audit engine operative to audit the customized certificate policy to verify
conformance with the predetermined constraints set by the standard
certificate policies," as recited in claim 1. Br. 6. Appellants present a
similar argument for claim 20. Br. 9. Appellants contend Huang teaches an
audit log server which determines who is attempting to access the resources
and which policies are actively being used. Br. 6 (citing Huang col. 4, 1. 61-
col. 5, 1. 8). Appellants assert that this portion of Huang does not teach
verifying conformance of the policies with predetermined constraints. Br. 7.
We disagree with Appellants' contentions. The Examiner finds
Huang teaches an enforcement entity. Final Act. 5 (citing Huang col. 4, 1. 61
- col. 5, 1. 8). The enforcement entity in Huang checks the authentication
and authorization "for all actions that need to be controlled with role based
access control." Huang col. 5, 11. 11-12. Thus, the enforcement entity in
Huang verifies that actions subject to the role based access control policies
are authenticated and authorized in accordance with those policies. Id.
Accordingly, we find no Examiner error.
Based upon the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellants do not present additional persuasive arguments regarding claims
2-26 (Br. 7-10), and, therefore, we sustain the rejections of these claims.
6
Appeal2014-008753
Application 12/942,374
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-26.
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
7