Ex Parte Otranen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 3, 201612707941 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121707,941 02/18/2010 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 02/05/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jari OTRANEN 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. P3811USOO 3505 EXAMINER ALATA,AYOUB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2494 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/05/2016 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JARI OTRANEN and ANS SI KARHINEN Appeal2014-001409 Application 12/707,941 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-001409 Application 12/707,941 I. STATEivIENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to "providing authentication session sharing between browsers and run time environments in network communication" (Abst.). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method comprising: receiving, at an interface, an authentication context associated with a first service; causing, at least in part, by a processor, storage of the authentication context in a first cache associated with the interface; and causing, at least in part, by the processor, population of the authentication context to a second cache associated with a second service, the second cache not directly linked to the interface, wherein the first cache and second cache are on a common device, and wherein the authentication context in the second cache authenticates access to the second service. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Lester et al. Corbett US 2008/0046983 Al US 8,099,766 Bl 2 Feb.21,2008 Jan. 17,2012 Appeal2014-001409 Application 12/707,941 Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lester. 1 Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Lester and Corbett. II. ISSUE The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Lester and Corbett, teaches or would have suggested a method comprising causing "storage of the authentication context [associated with a first service] in a first cache associated with the interface;" and "population of the authentication context to a second cache associated with a second service," wherein "the first cache and second cache are on a common device" (claim 1 ). In particular, the issue turns on whether Lester and Corbett teach or suggest storing authentication context associated with a first device in a first cache and populating the same authentication context to a second cache associated with a second device. 1 Although the Examiner indicates in the Non-Final Rejection that "[a] new ground of rejections is set forth" (Non-Fin. Rej. 2), the Examiner notes that "rejection 102(b) is maintained'' (Non-Fin. Rej. 3, emphasis added). That is, the Examiner has never indicated that the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) have been withdrawn (id.). Instead, as set forth in the Answer, the Examiner states "Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office action dated April 4, 2013 from which the appeal is taken is being maintained ... "(Ans. 3). Accordingly, claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 3 Appeal2014-001409 Application 12/707,941 III. FTI'-JDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Lester 1. Lester discloses using a single authentication with an authentication service to permit access to a plurality of services provided by one or more of the service providers, wherein a single verification of credentials (i.e., sign-in) to the authentication service authenticates the client (i.e., provides proof of identity of client) for access to a plurality of services (i-fi-124-25). An authentication service integrated as part of a web service provider may authenticate a client to access other services, which may include other services provided by one or more of the service providers (i-f27). A common credential store stores a variety of account profile data and authentication data corresponding to accounts and/ or users of a corresponding one of the clients (i-f28). 2. For example, "Adam" may be "signed-in" to "Adam@play" in email via browser and to "Adam@work" via an instance of instant messaging application, and "Adam" may select a link in email to launch an instant messaging session which causes authentication interface to transfer the account "Adam@play" to an instance of the instant messaging application, wherein if the instant messaging application is configured for multiple instances, then "Adam@play" may be transferred without "Adam@work" being "signed-out" (i-f65). Upon successful authentication of "Adam@work" to the instant messaging application, the client may receive authentication data from the authentication service, and the data corresponding to the authentication of "Adam@work" to the instant 4 Appeal2014-001409 Application 12/707,941 messaging application may then be stored in the common credential database and may later be accessed via the authentication interface such as to transfer the account "Adam@work" to another application and so forth (i-f66). Corbett 3. Corbett discloses transmitting credentials between network elements and disk elements in a storage system, wherein a network element inserts a credential associated with a user to a network element credential cache and creates a corresponding credential handle that indexes the credential in that cache, and the network element then relays the credential and credential handle to the disk element which adds the credential to a corresponding disk element credential cache at a location indexed by the corresponding credential handle (Abst.). Network element credential cache 600a and disk element credential cache 600b share the same memory 224 of node 200 (col. 15, 11. 23-25; Fig. 2). IV. ANALYSIS 35 u.s.c. §102(b) At the outset, we note that Appellants do not present arguments in the Appeal Brief directed to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, we will sustain this rejection proforma. 35 u.s.c. §103 Appellants contend, although "Lester describes an authentication service 106 that manages the plurality of user accounts 112 ... , there is no discussion of a cache ... anywhere in the entire reference" (App. Br. 7). In particular, Appellants contend Lester does not disclose or suggest "caching of any kind" (id.). 5 Appeal2014-001409 Application 12/707,941 Although Appellants concede, Corbett discloses "population" of "caches" wherein "[t]he caches of Corbett may be on a common device," Appellants contend "rather than populating an authentication context to a second cache associated with a second service, Corbett discloses the population of a first cache by a network element with credentials and the population of a second cache by a disk element with credential handles" (App. Br. 8-9). We consider all of Appellants' arguments and evidence presented, and disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's rejections of the claims. We 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 set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellants' Appeal Brief. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below: We note Appellants' contentions appear to be directed to what Lester or Corbett individually fails to disclose or suggest (App. Br. 7-9). However, although Appellants contend Lester does not disclose or suggest "caching of any kind" (App. Br. 7), we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Corbett for teaching or at least suggesting the use of "cache" (Final Act. 6; Ans. 6; FF 3). Further, we are unconvinced of error of the Examiner's finding, "[i]n Lester, the services used by a user of a client device include a web search, e-mail and instant message via a web browser and other tools" wherein "[a] conventional feature of each of these network applications are the use of caches" (Ans. 5). Thus, contrary to Appellants' contention that Lester does not disclose or suggest "caching of any kind" (App. Br. 7), we 6 Appeal2014-001409 Application 12/707,941 find no error with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Lester and Corbett teaches or suggests the use of caches. Lester discloses using a single authentication to permit access to a plurality of services provided by one or more of the service providers, wherein only a single verification of credentials is performed and a common credential store stores a variety of account profile data and authentication data corresponding to accounts and/or users of a corresponding one of the clients (FF 1-2). We agree with the Examiner's finding "Lester discloses a system and method for sharing authentication data between different services by using a common credential store on a client device" wherein "[t]he stored authentication data can be used to authenticate a user to a first device (e.g., web search, e-mail and instant messaging), and the same authentication data can then be used to authenticate the user to a second device" (Ans. 4). Thus, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Lester for the teaching/suggestion of storing of authentication context associated with a first service in a first storage location and populating the same authentication context to a second storage location associated with a second service, as required by claim 1. As the Examiner finds, Lester discloses all of the contested limitations except "Lester does not expressly teach the use of two caches to store credentials" (Ans. 5). Corbett discloses transmitting credentials between network elements and disk elements in a storage system, wherein credential associated with a user is inserted to a network element credential cache, and the network element then relays the credential to the disk element which adds the credential to a corresponding disk element credential cache, and wherein the network element credential cache and disk element credential cache share 7 Appeal2014-001409 Application 12/707,941 the same memory (FF 3). Thus, contrary to Appellants' contention that "Corbett discloses the population of a first cache by a network element with credentials and the population of a second cache by a disk element with credential handles" (App. Br. 8-9), Corbett discloses and suggests storing credentials in a network element credential cache and populating the disk element credential cache also with the credentials (FF 3). Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Corbett for teaching and suggesting "storage of the authentication context [credentials] in a first cache;" and "population of the authentication context to a second cache," wherein "the first cache and second cache are on a common device" (claim 1 ). The test for obviousness is what the combination of Lester and Corbett would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We find it would have been well within the level of skill of one skilled in the art to combine Corbett's storage of credentials in first and second caches on a common device (FF 3) with Lester's teaching and suggestion of storing authentication context associated with a first service in a first storage location and populating the same authentication context to a second storage location associated with a second service (FF 1-2). The Supreme Court has clearly stated the "combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellants have provided no evidence that Lester's storing of authentication context (FF 1-2) in caches (FF 3) was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art," Leapfrog Enters., 8 Appeal2014-001409 Application 12/707,941 Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor have Appellants presented evidence that this incorporation yielded more than expected results. Rather, we find Appellants' invention is simply a modification of familiar prior art practices or acts (as taught or suggested by the cited combination of references) that would have realized a predictable result. The skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR at 421. On this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-19 not argued separately and thus falling therewith (App. Br. 10) over Lester and Corbett. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 mp 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation