Ex Parte Walker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13930308 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
13/930,308 06/28/2013 William T. Walker 112636-2036-101 6155
1473 7590
Haley Guiliano LLP
75 Broad Street
Suite 1000
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
BAUM, RONALD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
haleyguiliano_PAIR @ firsttofile. com
HGPatentDocket @ hglaw. com
DocketRequests @ hglaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM T. WALKER and AABHA BIYANI
Appeal 2017-006506
Application 13/930,308
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellant1 discloses authentication methods and systems in which “a
key may be shared with a second host along with a license file and, provided
at least the second host has a key associated with its system identifier and a
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Avaya Inc., which, according to the Appeal
Brief, is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-006506
Application 13/930,308
key associated with a license file, access to a licensed resource may be
authorized.” Abstract.
Illustrative Claim {key limitations emphasized)
1. A method of sharing a virtualized host access key,
comprising:
having a first host, operable to access a resource upon being
authorized and whereby the authorization includes determining
that a first host key associated with the identity of the first host
is associated with a license repository, wherein the first host is
configured to provide a virtualized computing environment;
creating a second host with a second host key, wherein the
second host is configured to provide a virtualized computing
environment;
copying the first host key and license repository to a second
host;
receiving by the second host a request to access the resource;
denying the request to access the resource by the second host
until the second host has been authorized; and
authorizing the second host to access the resource upon (a)
determining that the second host key is associated with a known
system identifier of the second host, (b) determining that the
second host has the first host key, and (c) determining the first
host key is associated with the license repository copied to the
second host.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4—7, 9—12, and 15—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Croft et al. (US 2007/0180493 Al;
published Aug. 2, 2007) (“Croft”). Final Act. 6-12.
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 8, 13, 14, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Croft, and TechTerms, Whitelist,
Sharpened Productions, available at http://techterms.com/defmition/whitelist
2
Appeal 2017-006506
Application 13/930,308
(Sept. 29, 2010), last visited Sept. 22, 2017 (“TechTerms”). Final Act. 12—
21.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—10 and 18—20
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), the Examiner finds
Croft’s disclosure—which includes the use of gathered information 712
(user names, client names, client addresses, password, Personal
Identification Numbers, voice samples, one-time passcodes, biometric data,
digital certificates, tickets, etc.) to make access control decisions (see Croft
1270)—discloses determining that a second host key is associated with a
known system identifier of a second host (Final Act. 8 (citing Croft 199,
233, 251, 270, 293, 342, 400, 476, 928, 930)).
Appellant contends the Examiner’s “rejection fails to proffer any basis
for the rejection [with respect] to the claimed ‘determining that the second
host key is associated with a known system identifier of the second host.’”
App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 13—14.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. The Examiner
finds Croft discloses:
various execution/implementation details associated with
acquiring at the remote/second host, the appropriate legitimate
virtual environment cryptographic attributes used in said
execution/implementation, which are clearly identified (i.e.,
naming/location/addressing identification criteria of resources
per se) in order for the associated ‘system’ to encompass the
said execution/implementation — i.e., the identification of
appropriate legitimate virtual environment cryptographic
attributes as then used in said execution/implementation, is
clearly the ‘determining’ aspect of said attributes prior to said
use.
3
Appeal 2017-006506
Application 13/930,308
Ans. 5 (further citing Croft H 342, 635, 642, 930). That is, the Examiner
interprets “determining that the second host key is associated with a known
system identifier of the second host” to mean setting the second key to a
known system identifier of the second host or identifying “appropriate
legitimate virtual environment cryptographic attributes.” Ans. 5.
The Examiner’s interpretation of the determining step is unreasonably
broad. Here, determining means ascertaining or testing whether the second
key is associated with a known system identifier of the second host. That is,
rather than setting the second key to a particular value, the disputed step is
directed to a step such as comparing an existing second key to a particular
value. This interpretation is supported by both the claim language and the
Specification’s disclosure, which makes clear that the determination that a
key matches a system identifier is the first of two tests:
In one embodiment, a resource operable to authorize host 2
(114) to access licensed resource 106B determines that a key, in
particular system key 116, matches system identifier 2 (122).
As they match, a second test is performed whereby license key
112B is compared to a key, in particular host key 108B and
they match. As a result, host 2 (114) is authorized to access
licensed resource 106B.
Spec. 131 (cited by App. Br. 3).
Because the Examiner’s finding that Croft’s disclosure describes the
determining recitation is based on an overly broad and unreasonable claim
construction of the determining recitation to mean setting a second host key
rather than ascertaining whether the second host key has a requisite
association, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not
support the conclusion that Croft discloses “determining that the second host
key is associated with a known system identifier of the second host,” as
4
Appeal 2017-006506
Application 13/930,308
recited in claim 1. Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 1, and claims 4—7, 9, and 10, which
contain the same recitation. These findings with respect to the determining
recitations are dispositive; we do not address whether the Examiner erred in
finding Croft discloses the other disputed recitations of claim 1.
The Examiner’s findings do not assert that TechTerms cures the noted
deficiency of Croft. Therefore, we also reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§103 rejection of claims 2, 3, and 8.
Independent claim 18 has a similar recitation to the disputed recitation
of claim 1 (“determining . . . the host has a second host key in accord with a
system identifier of the host”). Therefore, for the reasons discussed above,
we also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) rejection of
claim 2, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 19 and 20.
Claims 11—17
In rejecting claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), the Examiner finds
Croft’s disclosure—which includes use of user-supplied credentials to
establish a connection (see Croft 1199) and use of authorization as part of a
portable computing environment loading mechanism (see id. 1400, Fig.
91 A)—discloses a copying mechanism operable to copy the first license
repository, from the first host image, to the second host (Ans. 8 (citing Croft
117, 181, 199, 214, 327, 687, 745, 928, 930)).
Appellant contends that although Croft uses public and private keys
for encryption and decryption, and Croft also use of usernames and
passwords for authentication, “at no point does Croft disclose or suggest the
copying of hosts keys or license repositories.” Reply Br. 15; see also App.
Br. 10. We agree.
5
Appeal 2017-006506
Application 13/930,308
In reviewing the cited portions of Croft, we also are unable to discern
where Croft discloses copying a license repository from a first host to a
second host. The most pertinent portion of Croft cited by the Examiner (for
different recitations directed to a first license repository) relates to a request
for “a license” from a remote machine, where the remote machine may
provide the requested license or a license that is acceptable for authorization
purposes to a second remote machine. See Croft 1700 (cited by Final Act.
6); see also Croft Fig. 18. However, the Examiner’s findings do not show
that providing a requested license discloses providing a single license
amounts to copying the license repository from which the license is
obtained. Therefore, we agree with Appellant the Examiner’s findings do
not show Croft discloses “a copying mechanism operable to . . . copy the
first license repository, from the first host image, to the second host,” as
recited in claim 11. As this finding is dispositive; we do not address whether
the Examiner erred in finding Croft discloses the other disputed recitations
of claim 11.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
rejection of claim 11, and claims 12 and 14—17, which contain the disputed
recitation. The Examiner’s findings do not assert that TechTerms cures the
noted deficiency of claim 13. Therefore, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 13.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
REVERSED
6