Ex Parte Ogg et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 2010

10292636 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JENNIFER L. OGG and DANIEL W. DOSMANN
____________

Appeal 2009-006429
Application 10/292,636
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOSEPH L. DIXON, and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, 14-24, and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-006429
Application 10/292,636

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a dial-up connection manager that is customized
by automatically downloading policy information over a network. See
generally Spec. ¶¶ 0037-41; Fig. 3. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A dial-up connection manager comprising:

a dialer component, implemented at an end-user device,
configured to connect to a network using a selected one of a
plurality of access numbers;

a phonebook component, implemented at the end-user
device, configured to store the plurality of access numbers, the
phonebook component automatically updating the stored
plurality of access numbers from a phonebook server when the
dialer component has made a network connection, the updating
occurring over the network connection;

a client policy component configured to customize the
dial-up connection manager based on policy information
automatically downloaded over the network from a policy
delivery server, the policy information describing whether
certain access numbers should be blocked or describing
messages that are to be shown to a user before the dialer
component connects to the network,

wherein the selected access number is selected from the
phonebook component based on factors including at least one
of cost of the network connection or access speed.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Moriconi US 6,158,010 Dec. 5, 2000
Rozenfeld US 2002/0083429 A1 June 27, 2002
(filed Aug. 2, 2001)
Putzolu US 6,578,076 B1 June 10, 2003
(filed Oct. 18, 1999)
Appeal 2009-006429
Application 10/292,636

3
Kleinrock US 6,795,852 B1 Sept. 21, 2004
(filed Sept. 11, 1996)

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5-8, 14-24, and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kleinrock, Rozenfeld, and either
Moriconi (Ans. 3-9) or Putzolu (Ans. 9-12).2

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KLEINROCK, ROZENFELD, AND
MORICONI

Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kleinrock
discloses a dial-up connection manager with every recited feature except for
(1) implementing the dialer and phonebook components on the end-user
device; (2) automatically updating the phonebook component’s stored access
numbers; and (3) a client policy component that customizes the dial-up
connection manager based on automatically-downloaded policy information.
The Examiner, however, cites Rozenfeld to cure deficiencies (1) and (2)
above, and also cites Moriconi for teaching difference (3) in concluding the
claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3-7.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest a
client policy component configured to customize a dial-up connection
manager based on automatically-downloaded policy information, let alone
that the policy information describes (1) whether certain access numbers
should be blocked, or (2) messages to be shown to a user before the dialer

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed April 28,
2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 4, 2008; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed August 4, 2008.
Appeal 2009-006429
Application 10/292,636

4
component connects to the network, as claimed. App. Br. 6-11; Reply Br. 2-
4. Appellants add that there is no reason to incorporate Moriconi’s policy
manager into either Kleinrock or Rozenfeld as the Examiner proposes. App.
Br. 12. Appellants make similar arguments regarding claim 23. App. Br.
20-26; Reply Br. 2-5.
Regarding claim 14, Appellants contend that the cited prior art does
not disclose a client policy component that modifies a user interface based
on policy information, as claimed. App. Br. 14-17; Reply Br. 5-6. The
issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Kleinrock,
Rozenfeld, and Moriconi collectively would have taught or suggested:
(a) a client policy component configured to customize a dial-up
connection manager based on automatically-downloaded policy information,
where the policy information describes (i) whether certain access numbers
should be blocked, or (ii) messages to be shown to a user before the dialer
component connects to a network as recited in claim 1?
(b) a client policy component that modifies a user interface based on
policy information as recited in claim 14?
2. Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of Kleinrock,
Rozenfeld, and Moriconi supported by articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

Appeal 2009-006429
Application 10/292,636

5
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Kleinrock’s system accesses online information proximal to a
user’s geographical location. To this end, after a user calls a particular
telephone number (e.g., an 800 number) from a computer; a remote
computer (1) receives the call and identifies the user’s location; (2) transmits
the most appropriate (e.g., cheapest, proximal, etc.) number the user should
use to connect to the “Net”; and (3) electronically dials the local number to
connect the user. Kleinrock, Abstract; col. 1, ll. 45-65.
2. Rozenfeld’s system customizes network connection application
(e.g., dialer) profiles. In one implementation, a client machine 101
comprises a customized dialer 150 and phonebook 152. The dialer
establishes a dial-up connection via selectable access points via a list in box
1710. Rozenfeld, Abstract; ¶¶ 0002, 0088; Figs. 16-17.
3. Dialer 150 can filter the list of access points based on the end-
user’s location, and display only the closest points of access in box 1710.
Rozenfeld, ¶ 0088; Figs. 16-17.
4. Using the dialer’s settings dialog box 2000, the user can choose to
automatically update the phonebook when a network connection is
established. Rozenfeld, ¶ 0092; Fig. 17; Fig. 20 (check box 2025).
5. Moriconi’s system maintains security in a distributed computer
network and comprises a server 112 with a non-volatile memory 124
including a “policy manager” 210. The policy manager manages and
distributes a security “policy” to clients 116 via network 114. Moriconi, col.
5, l. 48 − col. 6, l. 19; Abstract; Figs. 1-2.
6. Client 116 has a non-volatile memory 138 that includes an
“application guard” 310 that grants or denies access to various client
Appeal 2009-006429
Application 10/292,636

6
components (e.g., applications, data, and/or objects) in accordance with the
security policy. The application guard includes an application 312,
authorization library and authorization engine programs 314 and 316, and a
local client policy 318. Moriconi, col. 5, ll. 48-54; col. 5, l. 66 − col. 6, l. 3;
col. 9, ll. 10-22; col. 10, ll. 27-63; Figs. 3, 5.
7. A policy specifies the security requirements for applications and
database objects, and may contain thousands of “security rules” that describe
several constraints including (1) what applications a user can access; (2)
what objects (operations) within an application a user can access; and (3)
how those privileges are constrained by time, geography, or external events.
Moriconi, col. 6, ll. 19-26.
8. An authorization policy consists of four components: (1) objects;
(2) subjects; (3) privileges; and (4) conditions. Moriconi, col. 6, ll. 33-35.
9. Objects may be applications or the operations within an
application. Examples of objects include (1) applications or methods; (2)
web pages; (3) database tables or files; and (4) menu items in a graphical
user interface. Moriconi, col. 6, ll. 35-38.
10. Privileges define the kinds of access that may be allowed on
objects (i.e., the right to perform a particular action on a specific object).
Privileges include the right to (1) execute an application; (2) download a
web page; (3) query a database table; and (4) view a menu item. Moriconi,
col. 7, ll. 34-40.

Appeal 2009-006429
Application 10/292,636

7
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 23, 24, and 26
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1. First, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 16) that the limitations reciting what the recited policy
information describes (i.e., that the information describes (1) whether certain
access numbers should be blocked, or (2) messages to be shown to a user
before the dialer component connects to a network) merely recites the
content of that information, and is therefore non-functional descriptive
material. Since this data content does not further limit the claimed invention
either functionally or structurally, it essentially constitutes non-functional
descriptive material. Such non-functional descriptive material, however,
does not patentably distinguish over prior art that otherwise renders the
claims unpatentable. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004);
see also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-89 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential) (discussing cases pertaining to non-functional descriptive
material).
In any event, even if this data content was functional (which it is not),
we are still not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection in
light of the collective teachings of the references. In short, we see no reason
why policy-based functionality, such as that disclosed by Moriconi (FF 5-
10), could not be applied to the customized dialers of Kleinrock (FF 1) and
Rozenfeld (FF 2-4) to customize the dialers in accordance with an
established authorization policy that dictates usage and access privileges for
that device. See FF 5-10. Such an improvement would at least enhance
Appeal 2009-006429
Application 10/292,636

8
security by controlling particular user access privileges for a particular
device according to the policy distributed to that device. See id.
In this regard, Moriconi’s distributed policy not only defines which
applications a user can access, but also dictates the rights a particular user
has to perform certain actions, including viewing menu items in a graphical
user interface. Id. We see no reason why this policy-based scheme could
not be applied to the dialers of Kleinrock and Rozenfeld, particularly since
Rozenfeld’s access numbers are displayed to the user via a graphical user
interface. FF 2. That Rozenfeld’s dialer can filter the listed numbers in this
interface in accordance with particular criteria (FF 3) only bolsters our
conclusion that using a distributed policy-based scheme for further security-
based customization (e.g., to block certain access numbers or show certain
pre-connection messages) would have been obvious.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Moriconi’s policy is not
used with dial-up connection managers within the four corners of that
reference (Ans. 16), the Examiner’s rejection is nevertheless not based on
that reference alone, but rather the collective teachings of the three cited
references. As such, Appellants’ arguments regarding Moriconi’s alleged
failure to teach that the client policy component customizes a dial-up
connection manager (App. Br. 7-11) are unavailing, since they do not
squarely address the Examiner’s underlying rationale which is based on the
collective teachings of the cited references—not Moriconi alone.
Moreover, despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br.
12), we find ample reason on this record to combine the respective teachings
of the cited references to arrive at the claimed invention as the Examiner
proposes. As noted above and as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 6), applying
Appeal 2009-006429
Application 10/292,636

9
Moriconi’s policy-based access control features in the prior art dialers would
at least enhance security. Such an enhancement is tantamount to the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 417 (2007). We therefore find the Examiner’s reason to combine
the teachings of Kleinrock, Rozenfeld, and Moriconi supported by
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 and claims 2 and 5-8 not separately argued. We reach a similar
conclusion regarding independent claim 23 which recites commensurate
limitations and claims 24 and 26 not separately argued.

Claims 14-22
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
14 which recites, in pertinent part, that the client policy component modifies
a user interface based on policy information. As noted above, Moriconi’s
distributed policy dictates the rights a particular user has to perform certain
actions, including viewing menu items in a graphical user interface. FF 9-
10. Tailoring the graphical user interface in this manner would have at least
suggested modifying a user interface based on the policy information,
particularly since Rozenfeld’s access numbers are likewise displayed to the
user via a graphical user interface. FF 2. That Rozenfeld’s dialer can filter
the listed numbers in this interface according to particular criteria (FF 3)
only bolsters our conclusion that using a policy-based scheme for further
security-based customization (e.g., to modify the user interface in
Appeal 2009-006429
Application 10/292,636

10
accordance with the policy) would have been obvious. As noted above, we
find such an enhancement likewise tantamount to the predictable use of prior
art elements according to their established functions. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
417.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 14 and claims 15-22 not separately argued.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-8, 14-24, and 26
under § 103.3

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-8, 14-24, and 26 is
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

3 Because our decision is dispositive regarding affirming the Examiner’s
rejection of all appealed claims, we need not reach the Examiner’s
alternative obviousness rejection based on Kleinrock, Rozenfeld, and
Putzolu (Ans. 9-12).
Appeal 2009-006429
Application 10/292,636

11

msc

VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON VA 22201-2909