Ex Parte Reisman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12603229 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/603,229 10/21/2009
105758 7590 06/30/2016
Renaissance IP Law Group LLP (Portland - North)
7327 SW Barnes Road #521
Portland, OR 97225
Richard R Reisman
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.
47003/0026 6147
EXAMINER
RASHID, HARUNUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2497
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
matthew. phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
docket. clerk@renaissanceiplaw.com
PhillipsPatentLawyer@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD R. REISMAN
Appeal2014-000914
Application 12/603,229
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and NORMAN
H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 5, 6, 8, 9, and 18-33.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 An Oral Hearing was held June 7, 2016.
2 Appellant identifies Intellectual Ventures I LLC, as the real party in
interest (App. Br. 1).
3 Claims 1--4, 7, and 10-17 have been canceled.
Appeal2014-000914
Application 12/603,229
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "providing services from a remote
computer system to a user station over a communications network" (Spec.
i-f 2). Claim 5 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
5. A computer implemented method, comprising:
receiving first user station information at a remote
computer system over a communications network during a first
user-initiated communication session for a user station not
previously identified to the remote computer system;
sending from the remote computer system second
information that is a function of the first user station
information and that is different from the first user station
information to the user station over the communications
network during the first user-initiated communication session to
be stored automatically at the user station;
storing third information based on the first user station
information at a location remote from the user station and
accessible to the remote computer system;
receiving at the remote computer system the second
information over the communications network during a
subsequent and separate user-initiated communication session
automatically from the user station;
retrieving the stored third information at the remote
computer system using the received second information, during
the subsequent and separate communication session; and
using the retrieved third information for action by the
remote computer system during the subsequent and separate
communication session.
Claims 5, 8, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 26, 28, 31, and 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Johnson (US 5,560,008; Sept. 24, 1996)
(see Final Act. 16-21 ).
2
Appeal2014-000914
Application 12/603,229
Claims 6, 9, 20, 24, 27, 29, 30, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson and Loucks (US 5,481,720; Jan. 2,
1996) (see Final Act. 22-24).
ANALYSIS
With respect to the rejection of claim 5, Appellant argues the decision
point 703 in Figure 7 of Johnson, which determines whether the user has a
credential id for the remote computer system, does not show that a user
station was not previously identified," (App. Br. 8-9). Appellant further
argues "client computers in Johnson are always previously identified" (App.
Br. 9). Additionally, Appellant asserts the client machine is already
identified to the server in order to construct the cryptographically
constructed verifier 415 (App. Br. (citing Johnson Fig. 4A; col. 9, 11. 12-21;
col. 7, 11. 32-34)).
In response, the Examiner explains the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim term "not previously identified to the remote
computer system" is met by Johnson's disclosure of
[T]he server builds a set of credentials that represents all
of the interesting security facts about the remote user. This
information includes the user id, the group id that the user is in,
the group set of other group ids that the user has access to, an
account id, the set of privileges of the user that allow the user to
bypass the normal security restrictions on the system, etc. The
server establishes all of the credentials for the user, and stores
this information in a data structure called the credentials
structure, and returns a small value (e.g. 64 bits) to the client
machine where the user is running. This returned small value is
referred to as the credentials identifier.
3
Appeal2014-000914
Application 12/603,229
(Ans. 3--4 (citing Johnson col. 5, 11. 53---67)). The Examiner further explains
the server builds the set of credentials because the user is unknown to the
server (Ans. 4).
We are persuaded by Appellant's contentions that the Examiner erred.
Although Johnson's server builds a set of credentials, as stated by Appellant
(Reply Br. 3), "Johnson's system already knows the identity of the user
before constructing the set of credentials, as evidenced by, for example,
Johnson's "verifier field" and "authentication info." We are further
persuaded by Appellant's assertion that cryptographically constructing the
verifier field 415 "is not possible unless the identity of the client machine is
known beforehand" because Johnson states "[t]he verifier field in the
{request for service/ message is checked for validitv. step 802, to insure
that the identity of the remote machine is known" (see Reply Br. 4 (citing
Johnson col. 10, 11. 64--66)).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
claim 5, or claims 8, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 26, 28, 31, and 33 dependent
therefrom. Similarly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 6, 9, 20, 24, 27, 29, 30, and 32 because the Examiner relies on
Johnson in the same manner discussed above in the context of claim 5, and
has not identified any teachings in the other applied prior art to overcome the
above-noted deficiency of Johnson.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 5, 6, 8, 9,
and 18-33.
4
Appeal2014-000914
Application 12/603,229
REVERSED
5