Ex Parte Nolan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

11741673 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111741,673 04/27/2007 John Edward Nolan
56436 7590 03/17/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82231427 3442
EXAMINER
LE,CANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN EDWARD NOLAN and RAJEEV GROVER
Appeal2014-007189
Application 11/741,679
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, KEVIN C. TROCK, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-007189
Application 11/741,673
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-23, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for securing access to an electronic system
compnsmg:
allocating access rights individually among a plurality of
hardware or operation elements in the electronic system;
individually securing the plurality of hardware or operation
elements with electronic or software-activated access;
authenticating ones of the hardware or operation element
plurality by one or more of a biometric, and an authenticating
device not required to be internal to ones of the hardware or
operation element plurality; and
enabling operation of ones of the hardware or operation element
plurality upon authentication.
Knouse
Chu
Chiasson
Gibson
Candelore
Dave
Prior Art
US 2003/0074580 Al
US 2006/0179294 Al
US 2007/0192604 Al
US 2008/0104680 Al
US 2008/0249946 A 1
US 8,000,502 B2
Examiner's Rejections
Apr. 17, 2003
Aug. 10, 2006
Aug. 16, 2007
May 1, 2008
Oct. 9, 2008
Aug. 16, 2011
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 19-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gibson and Dave.
2
Appeal2014-007189
Application 11/741,673
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gibson, Dave, and Jasper.
Claims 7, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gibson, Dave, and Chiasson.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gibson, Dave, and Knouse.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gibson, Dave, and Chu.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gibson, Dave, and Candelore.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants contend the combination of Gibson and Dave does not
teach "authenticating ones of the hardware or operation element plurality by
one or more of a biometric, and an authenticating device not required to be
internal to ones of the hardware or operation element plurality" as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2--4.
The Abstract of Gibson teaches a USB drive, which is not internal to a
server, with authentication information for granting access to the server.
The Title and Abstract of Dave teach the authentication information on the
USB drive can be for a fingerprint. Using the fingerprint authentication
information of Dave as the authentication information in the USB drive of
3
Appeal2014-007189
Application 11/741,673
Gibson yields the predictable result of "authenticating ones of the hardware
or operation element plurality by one or more of a biometric, and an
authenticating device not required to be internal to ones of the hardware or
operation element plurality" within the meaning of claim 1. We sustain the
rejections of claims 1-23.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-23 are affirmed.
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
4