09956420 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 8, 2009)

Ex Parte Stoltz et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 8, 2009

09956420 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 8, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte ROBERT STOLTZ, JOHN ROOSA, ROBERT KEIM, and STEVEN GROFFMAN ____________ Appeal 2008-005423 Application 09/956,420 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Decided:1 June 8, 2009 ____________ Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Data (electronic delivery). Appeal 2008-005423 Application 09/956,420 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-47. The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). INVENTION The invention at issue on appeal creates at least one certificate and issues it to a first user. Each certificate has an identifier, and the first user has its own identifier. The first user gives the certificate to a second user for redemption. (Spec. 3-4.) ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 1. A computer-based method for recognizing users comprising: creating one or more recognition certificates, each recognition certificate having a certificate identifier; issuing the one or more recognition certificates from an entity to a first user having a first user identifier; storing the certificate identifier and the first user identifier for each recognition certificate issued to the first user in a database; motivating the first user to give one or more of the recognition certificates issued to the first user to a second user; redeeming at least one of the recognition certificates given to the second user having a second user identifier by the first user; and Appeal 2008-005423 Application 09/956,420 3 storing the second user identifier and the first user identifier with the certificate identifier in the database for each recognition certificate given to the second user. PRIOR ART Elley US 6,883,100 B1 Apr. 19, 2005 (filed May 10, 1999) Danieli US 6,510,513 B1 Jan. 21, 2003 (filed Jan. 13, 1999) REJECTIONS Claims 1-6, 8-20, 22-34, and 36-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Elley . Claims 7, 21 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Elley and Danieli. CLAIM GROUPING When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group of claims that are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone. Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2008-005423 Application 09/956,420 4 Here, the Appellants argue claims 1-6, 8-20, 22-34, and 36-47, which are subject to the same ground of rejection, as a group. (Amended App. Br. 7-12.) We select claim 1 as the sole claim on which to decide the appeal of the group. "With this representation in mind, rather than reiterate the positions of the parties in toto, we focus on the issue therebetween." Ex parte Nikoonahad, No. 2006-3247, 2007 WL 1591636, at *2 (BPAI 2007). ISSUE The Examiner makes the following findings. [A] digital certificate, as taught by Elley, is indeed qualified as one type of recognition certificates because a digital certificate is used to allow the system to recognize the identity of the users with right permissions to access the system resources (Elley: Column 4 Line 16 - 31). (Answer 10.) [T]he first user (i.e. the client computer Alice) is motivated to give one or more of the digital certificates to a second user (i.e. the resource server Bob) because the client computer Alice needs to prove the correct identity in order to gain the resource access right from the resource server Bob by providing the associated one or more digital certificates for identity validation (Elley: Column 6 Line 36 - 42). (Id.) The client computer Alice redeems the digital certificate through gaining the access right permission to the system resource when presenting the certificate to the resource server Bob (Elley: Column 10 Line 45 â€“ 51). (Id. 11.) The Appellants argue that "Elley does not teach or suggest a 'recognition certificate'" (Amended App. Br. 9); "that Elley does not teach or suggest motivating the first user to give one or more of the recognition Appeal 2008-005423 Application 09/956,420 5 certificates issued to the first user to a second user" (id. 7); and "that Elley does not teach or suggest redeeming at least one of the recognition certificates given to the second user" (id. 10). Therefore, the issue before us is whether the Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's finding that Elley discloses a recognition certificate, motivating a first user to give the recognition certificates to a second user, and redeeming the recognition certificate given to the second user. LAW "[A]nticipation is a question of fact." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Bischoff v. Wethered, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 812, 814-15 (1869); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). "[A]nticipation of a claim under Â§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim . . . ." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Of course, anticipation "is not an 'ipsissimis verbis' test." In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). "An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims." Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). FINDINGS OF FACT ("FFS") 1. Elley "is directed to the client-server situation wherein the client is not individually authorized for access to a resource but may gain Appeal 2008-005423 Application 09/956,420 6 access by means of a group membership certificate (necessary for access to a particular resource) or a group non-membership certificate (when a group is specifically excluded from access to a resource)." (Col. 4, ll. 20-26.) "A group membership or group non-membership certificate usually indicates membership status for a specified name, e.g., client 'Alice' is a member of group G1 . . . ." (Id. ll. 42-44.) 2. The reference offers the following example. Alice may be attempting to access a resource on resource server "Bob". If Alice is not listed as an individual on the resource ACL [i.e., access control list], but groups G1, G2 and G3 are listed on the ACL, Bob returns to Alice the message: "Access denied, unless you can prove membership in group G1, G2 or G3." (Col. 5, ll. 7-13.) 3. " FIG. 6 is an illustrative flow diagram 600 of the group membership access authorization procedure." (Col. 9, ll. 40-41.) "At block 622 client Alice 104 transmits to resource server Bob 110 [a] group membership certificate . . . ." (Col. 10, ll. 41-42.) "At decision block 624 resource server Bob 110 attempts to validate the group certificate presented at block 622." (Id. ll. 45-46.) If the validation succeeds "access is granted at block 626." (Id. l. 51.) ANALYSIS In Elley a client uses a group membership or non-membership certificate to gain access to a resource hosted be a server. (FF 1.) Because the certificate "allow[s] the system to recognize the identity of the users with Appeal 2008-005423 Application 09/956,420 7 right permissions to access the system resources" (Answer 10), we agree with the Examiner's finding that it constitutes a recognition certificate, in accordance with the common meaning of these terms. When Alice attempts to access a resource of Bob, Bob may return the following message to Alice: "Access denied, unless you can prove membership in group G1, G2 or G3." (FF 2.) We agree with the Examiner's finding that the message motivates Alice to give at least one certificate to Bob to achieve its programmed objective. When Alice transmits a certificate to Bob, Bob attempts to validate it. (FF 3.) If the validation succeeds Alice is granted access to the resource. (Id.) We agree with the Examiner's finding that granting access to the resource based on validation of the certificate given to Bob constitutes redeeming the recognition certificate given to the second user. CONCLUSION Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, we conclude that the Appellants have shown no error in the Examiner's finding that Elley discloses a recognition certificate, motivating a first user to give the recognition certificates to a second user, and redeeming the recognition certificate given to the second user. DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1-47. Appeal 2008-005423 Application 09/956,420 8 No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rwk GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION 3000 THANKSGIVING TOWER 1601 ELM ST DALLAS TX 75201-4761