Ex Parte Schrecker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

13442830 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/442,830 04/09/2012 Sven Schrecker 04796-1113 (P52597) 7911
106448 7590 04/03/2017
PATENT CAPITAL GROUP
2816 Lago Vista Lane
Rockwall, TX 75032
EXAMINER
ASRES, HERMON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
PAIR_106448 @patcapgroup.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SVEN SCHRECKER
Appeal 2016-004956
Application 13/442,830
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 seeks our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1—17 and 19—25. Claim 18 is canceled. See Claims
Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed September 8, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed April 4, 2016; the Examiner’s
Answer mailed February 2, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification
filed April 9, 2012.
2 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is McAfee, Inc. App.
Br. 2.
3 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal 2016-004956
Application 13/442,830
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to establishing a connection between a wireless
token device and a first computing device to create a computing session with
authentication data, establishing a connection between the wireless token
device and a second computing device to transition the computing session
from the first computing device to the second computing device with
authentication data. Spec. Tflf 11—13. An understanding of the invention can
be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below
with disputed limitations italicized and some formatting added:
1. At least one machine accessible storage medium having
instructions stored thereon, the instructions when executed on a
machine, cause the machine to:
establish a connection between a first computing device
and a wireless token device over a short-range wireless
network;
send first authentication data associated with a particular
user from the wireless token device to the first computing
device over the short-range wireless network, wherein the first
authentication data is based at least in part on user identifier
data corresponding to the particular user and securely stored in
memory of the wireless token device, the first computing
device is authenticated for use by the particular user in a
particular computing session based on the first authentication
data and authenticating the first computing device permits the
first computing device to participate in the particular computing
session as associated with the particular user;
detect a second computing device as substantially
collocated with the wireless token device, using the short-range
wireless communication network;
2
Appeal 2016-004956
Application 13/442,830
establish a connection between the second computing
device and the wireless token device over the short-range
wireless network; and
send second authentication data stored in memory of the
wireless token device from the wireless token device to the
second computing device over the short-range wireless
network, wherein the second authentication data is based at
least in part on the user identifier data, the second computing
device is authenticated for use by the particular user in the
particular computing session based on the second
authentication data and authenticating the second computing
device permits the second computing device to participate in
the particular computing session and causes association with
the particular user within the computing session to transition
from the first computing device to the second computing device,
wherein the particular computing session is associated
with the particular user and persists during a transition from
use of the first computing device to use of the second computing
device by the particular user.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Gallant et al. US 2007/0067466 Al Mar. 22, 2007
(“Gallant”)
Janevski US 2008/0109895 Al May 8, 2008
Halasz et al. US 2008/0301790 Al Dec. 4, 2008
(“Halasz”)
Plewnia US 2013/0152183 Al June 13, 2013
Buer et al.
(“Buer”)
EP 1 536 306 Al June 1, 2005
The Claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1—8, 13—17, and 19—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Buer and Plewnia. Final Act. 3—15.
3
Appeal 2016-004956
Application 13/442,830
2. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Buer, Plewnia, and Janevski. Final Act. 15—17.
3. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Buer, Plewnia, and Gallant. Final Act. 17—18.
4. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Buer, Plewnia, and Halasz. Final Act. 18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
Appellant argues all claims as a single group. App. Br. 10.
Specifically, Appellant contends Buer does not teach the disputed limitations
indicated above with respect to claim 1 because Buer does not teach
authentication of a first and second computing device with a wireless token
device based on authentication data to transition a computing session from
the first device to the second device while the session persists. App. Br. 11;
Reply Br. 4. According to Appellant, Buer does not teach user
authentication of multiple devices within a single session of service. App.
Br. 12 (citing Buer || 126—127). Appellant additionally argues that Buer is
silent regarding the concept of a session as it pertains to services. App. Br.
12, 13 (citing Buer 1120). Appellant notes that Buer provides a detailed
teaching of a device receiving signals containing credentials from a wireless
proximity token to access a secured service through the device provided by a
service provider. App. Br. 13 (citing Buer | 111).
4
Appeal 2016-004956
Application 13/442,830
Buer states “a user may use a token to access one or more services via
one or more access devices.” Buer 1126; Ans. 22 (quoting Buer 1126).
We agree with the Examiner that a service through multiple computing
devices is within the scope of the above statement from Buer. Ans. 22
(citing Buer 1126). Appellant’s Specification does not define session per
se. Ans. 21 (citing Spec. 1 54). Nevertheless, Appellant’s Specification
describes allowing a user to modify data within a session. Spec. 1 54. Buer
provides examples of a service that include “access to data and/or a data
processing service,. . ., access a web page, access a data network or access
a processing application.” Buer 1 120. Buer additionally teaches that access
to data includes manipulating data. See Buer 1122. Similarly to the session
described in Appellant’s Specification, a service in Buer allows a user to
modify data. See Spec. 1 54; see Buer 1122. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellant that Buer does not teach or suggest the concept of a
session because a service, as taught by Buer, is within the scope of session
under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term in light of
Appellant’s Specification. Appellant does dispute the Examiner’s finding
that Buer teaches authenticating a user with the wireless token to access a
secure service on a device. App. Br. 13 (citing Buer 1 111). We agree with
the Examiner that one skilled in the art would use this teaching in Buer of
authentication with one device in combination with Buer’s teaching of using
the wireless token to access the same secure service on another device to
authenticate the user on the second device with the wireless token. See Buer
11 111, 126. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant that Buer does
not teach or suggest authenticating a user in a session with the wireless token
with authentication data on a first computing device, transitioning the
5
Appeal 2016-004956
Application 13/442,830
authentication of the user from the first computing device to a second
computing device, and maintaining the user’s authentication within the
session during the transition from one device to another. Reply Br. 3, 4.
For these reasons we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We sustain
the rejections of Claims 1—17 and 19—25.
DECISION
The rejections of Claims 1—17 and 19—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
6