Rykowski, Adam et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2020

14739975 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2020)

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.
14/739,975 06/15/2015 Adam Rykowski W205.01 (500102-1950) 8119
152577 7590 01/28/2020
Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP (VMW)
3200 Windy Hill Road, SE
Suite 1600E
Atlanta, GA 30339
EXAMINER
MCCOY, RICHARD ANTHONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2020 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):
docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
uspatents@thomashorstemeyer.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ADAM RYKOWSKI, ASHISH JAIN, DALE ROBERT OLDS,
EMILY HONG XU, KABIR BARDAY, KYLE AUSTIN, SRIDHARA
BABU KOMMIREDDY, JONATHAN BLAKE BRANNON,
and CAMILO LOTERO
____________

Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JUSTIN BUSCH, and CARL L. SILVERMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AirWatch
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention enables single-sign on using managed mobile
devices. After receiving an identity assertion request from a client device
application, an identity provider service detects a platform associated with
the client device, and sends a response to the request based on the platform,
where the response requests authentication by a management credential.
Data generated by the management credential is received from the client
device, and the credential is determined to be valid for the identity assertion.
The identity assertion is then sent to the client device responsive to this
determination. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium
embodying a program executable in a server computing
device, the program, when executed by the server
computing device, being configured to cause the server
computing device to at least:
receive a request for an identity assertion from an
application executed in a mobile device;
detect that the mobile device is associated with a
specific platform of a plurality of platforms;
identify a specific platform adapter
corresponding to the specific platform, the specific
platform adapter being associated with a type of
management credential;
send to the mobile device a response to the
request that is generated by the specific platform adapter
for the type of management credential, the response
requesting authentication by a management credential;
receive data generated by the management
credential from the mobile device;
determine that the management credential is valid
for the identity assertion; and
send the identity assertion to the mobile device in
response to determining that the management credential
is valid for the identity assertion.
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–6, 12–17,2 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Moore (US 2013/0049928 A1; published Feb.
28, 2013), Matsumura (US 2010/0318636 A1; published Dec. 16, 2010), and
Lamoureux (US 2014/0279622 A1; published Sept. 18, 2014). Final Act.
13–18.3
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Moore, Hyland (US 2014/0310792 Al; published Oct. 16,
2014), and Shao (US 2014/0376403 Al; published Dec. 25, 2014). Final
Act. 19–21.
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Moore, Hyland, Shao, Matsumura, and Lamoureux. Final Act. 22–23.
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Moore, Hyland, Shao, and Rudraraju (US 2015/0052584
Al; published Feb. 19, 2015). Final Act. 24.
The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Moore, Matsumura, Lamoureux, and Rudraraju. Final
Act. 25.

2 Although the Examiner omits claim 14 from the statement of the rejection,
this claim is nonetheless included in the corresponding discussion. Compare
Final Act. 13 with Final Act. 18. We, therefore, include claim 14 here to
clarify the record, and treat the Examiner’s error in this regard as harmless.
3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
December 27, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed May 25, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 23, 2018
(“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed October 17, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

4
The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Moore, Matsumura, Lamoureux, and Chung (US
2002/0078153 Al; published June 20, 2002). Final Act. 26.

THE REJECTION OVER MOORE, MATSUMURA, AND LAMOUREUX
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Moore
discloses a computer-readable medium with a program causing a server
computing device to (1) receive a request for an identity assertion from an
application executed in a mobile device; (2) send a response to the request to
the mobile device, where the response requests authentication by a
management credential; (3) receive data generated by the management
credential from the mobile device; (4) determine that the management
credential is valid for the identity assertion; and (5) send the identity
assertion to the mobile device responsive to determining the credential’s
validity. Final Act. 13. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Moore
does not detect that the mobile device is associated with a specific platform
of plural platforms, the Examiner cites Matsumura as teaching this feature.
Id. 14. The Examiner also acknowledges that Moore and Matsumura do not
identify a specific platform adapter corresponding to the specific platform,
but cites Lamoureux for teaching that feature. Id. 15. The Examiner adds
that Moore and Matsumura collectively teach (1) associating the adapter
with a type of management credential, and (2) generating a request by the
specific platform adapter. Id. Based on these collective teachings, the
Examiner concludes that the claim would have been obvious. Id. 13–15.
Appellant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose (1) receiving a
request for an identity assertion from an application executed in a mobile
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

5
device; (2) detecting that the mobile device is associated with a specific
platform of plural platforms; (3) identifying a specific platform adapter
corresponding to the specific platform, where the adapter is associated with
a type of management credential; and (4) sending to the mobile device a
response to the request that is generated by the specific platform adapter for
the type of management credential, where the response requests
authentication by a management credential. Appeal Br. 6–21; Reply Br. 4–
20. According to Appellant, Moore does not receive a request for an identity
assertion from a mobile device application, let alone disclose a management
credential that is provisioned to devices, but rather uses a single login form
associated with a physical visitor check-in point that is part of a closed
physical access system. Appeal Br. 7–13; Reply Br. 4–5, 8–9, 13–15.
Appellant adds that Moore does not authenticate mobile devices with
different platforms or identify a specific platform adapter, let alone generate
messages based on that adapter. Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Matsumura is
misplaced because Matsumura is unrelated to authentication where different
platforms with different management credentials request access, thus
requiring different responses. Appeal Br. 13–15. According to Appellant,
Matsumura’s data format conversion is inapplicable to login forms, such as
those used by Moore. Appeal Br. 14–15. Appellant adds that the
Examiner’s reliance on Lamoureux is likewise misplaced because not only
are Lamoureux’s employment search teachings unrelated to the claimed
invention, Lamoureux does not identify a specific platform adapter
associated with a management credential as claimed, but merely generates
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

6
different user interfaces for different platforms. Appeal Br. 16–18; Reply
Br. 11. Appellant argues other recited limitations summarized below.

ISSUES
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Moore,
Matsumura, and Lamoureux collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1)(a) receiving a request for an identity assertion from an application
executed in a mobile device; (b) detecting that the mobile device is
associated with a specific platform of plural platforms; (c) identifying as
specific platform adapter corresponding to the specific platform, where the
adapter is associated with a type of management credential; and (d) sending
to the mobile device a response to the request that is generated by the
specific platform adapter for the type of management credential, where the
response requests authentication by a management credential as recited in
claim 1?
(2) the management credential corresponds to a secure certificate or a
Kerberos profile as recited in claim 12?
II. Is the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–6
As noted above, a key aspect of the claimed invention involves
identifying a specific platform adapter corresponding to a specific platform,
where the adapter is associated with a type of management credential. Our
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

7
emphasis underscores a key term in this dispute, for Appellant emphasizes
this qualifier in arguing that the cited prior art lacks such a credential, and
that the Examiner allegedly ignored the term “management” in the term
“management credential” as claimed. See Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 5, 15.
We, therefore, begin by construing the term “management credential.”
The Specification does not define the term, but does note that upon
authentication with device management service 204 in Figure 2, the client
device’s management application 221 is able to obtain management
credentials 225 that allow the client applications 224 to request identity
assertions from identity provider 206 to authenticate the client applications
with the respective service providers. Spec. ¶ 32. This process is shown in
steps 315 to 330 of Figure 3, where a client application obtains a
management credential from the device management service after the
management application obtains the user’s security credentials in step 318.
See Spec. ¶¶ 36–38.
As shown in step 408 of Figure 4, identity provider 206 requests
authentication using a management credential 225 based on the client
device’s detected platform. Spec. ¶ 43. According to the Specification,
paragraph 43, different types of security credentials and certificates can be
used depending on the client device’s platform. For example, the
management credential can include (1) a secure certificate; (2) a Kerberos
profile; or (3) other credentials. Id. Our emphasis underscores that the
management credential is not limited to secure certificates or Kerberos
profiles, but rather can also include other unspecified credentials.
Although this description informs our understanding of the recited
“management credential,” the term is not so limited, particularly given the
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

8
Specification’s lack of specificity regarding the “other” credentials that can
be “management credentials” in paragraph 43. Accord Ans. 12 (noting the
Specification’s lack of guidance regarding the distinction between a
“credential” and a “management credential”), 16 (noting that the term “other
credential” is not narrower than the term “credential”).
Given the scope and breadth of the term “management credential,” we
see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the credentials and other
identifying information (4)4 that are entered by a visitor in a login interface
in Moore’s Figure 3 for teaching the recited management credential. See
Final Act. 13; Ans. 4, 12. Appellant’s arguments regarding Moore’s lacking
a management credential, particularly in light of the distinction between
user-entered credentials and management credentials in Appellant’s Figure 3
(Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 13) are unavailing, for they are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. That Moore may not articulate
the word “management” explicitly as Appellant contends (Reply Br. 5) is
not dispositive. Notably, nothing in the claim precludes the Examiner’s
reliance on the credentials and other identifying information that comport
with the non-limiting examples of management credentials in the
Specification’s paragraph 43 noted previously. Furthermore, Moore’s
credentials at least relate to managing access using various devices shown in
Figure 3, including visitor access service 210, identity provider STS 220,
and resource STS 230. Notably, these devices’ functionality that, among

4 Numerals indicated in parentheses correspond to various enumerated steps
shown in ovals in Moore’s Figure 3 that illustrate the flow of
communications between various components in that figure. See Moore
¶¶ 40–44.
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

9
other things, generates and verifies tokens, is based partly on the identity
provider STS 220 receiving the credentials (4). See Moore ¶¶ 43–46. In this
sense, then, these credentials are at least related to device management, at
least with respect to an authentication procedure that uses those devices in a
particular way. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments regarding Moore’s
alleged shortcomings regarding device management (Reply Br. 5) are
unpersuasive even if the term “management credential” in claim 1 was
somehow limited to device management—which it is not. To the extent that
some exemplary management credentials in the Specification pertain to
device management, we decline to import those particular device
management examples into the claim. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted) (“[A]lthough the
specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we
have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments. .
. . [C]laims may embrace different subject matter than is illustrated in the
specific embodiments in the specification.”) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on the functionality of
Moore’s Figure 3 for teaching (a) receiving a request, namely redirect
message (2D), for an identity assertion from an application; and (b) sending
a response to the request, namely the visitor organization’s login form (3)
that the identity provider STS 220 presents to the visitor, where the response
requests authentication by a management credential. See Final Act. 13; Ans.
12.
As shown in Moore’s Figure 3, after a visitor invokes a graphical user
interface (GUI) of visitor access service 210 through visitor interface 208,
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

10
such as through a browser window, the visitor can select a particular
organization associated with that visitor, and then request access (1) under
that organization. Moore ¶ 41. After several other steps, the visitor
interface sends a redirect message (2D) with an access request to identity
provider secure token service (STS) 220. Moore ¶ 42. The identity provider
STS 220 then presents the user with the visitor organization’s login form (3)
within the visitor interface. Moore ¶ 43; Figs. 3–4. The credentials or other
identifying information (4) entered by the user in the organization’s login
interface within the visitor interface are then received by the identity
provider STS 220 that then authenticates the visitor using the visitor’s
employer authentication credentials entered by the visitor. Moore ¶ 43. The
identity provider STS 220 then creates a Security Assertion Markup
Language (SAML) ID-token containing the visitor’s authenticated identity
and attribute assertions, where the token is signed and encrypted in
accordance with the WS-Federation standard. Id.
Based on this functionality in Moore’s Figure 3, we see no error in the
Examiner’s finding that Moore at least suggests receiving a request for an
identity assertion, namely redirect message (2D), from an application
executed in a device, namely the device providing the visitor interface.
Although Moore does not say that this interface-providing device can be a
mobile device, we nonetheless see no error in the Examiner’s finding that
providing this interface via a mobile device would have been at least an
obvious variation for the reasons indicated by the Examiner, including
enabling the user to use their own device to access the interface instead of
standing in line at a kiosk, as well as leveraging the mobile device’s memory
and display capabilities. See Ans. 10 (noting the advantages to both the
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

11
visitor and host organization of using mobile devices in connection with the
visitor entering credentials in connection with Moore’s paragraph 43).5
Even assuming, without deciding, that Moore’s visitor check-in point
104 is limited to a fixed, physical device that displays the visitor interface,
such as a kiosk, as Appellant seems to suggest (see Reply Br. 8), Appellant
has still not shown that adapting Moore’s system with its purported
“controlled, physically installed check-in point” to use more modern
electronic components, such as mobile devices, to provide the visitor
interface to gain the commonly understood benefits of such an adaptation,
would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of skill
of ordinarily skilled artisans. Indeed, the Examiner’s proposed adaptation to
Moore’s system is analogous to conventional electronic updates to
mechanical devices that the court noted in Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007)—a technological
trend that was held to be common in the electronics industry. See Leapfrog,
485 F.3d at 1161 (“Applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices
has been commonplace in recent years.”). In short, the fact that Moore
ostensibly uses a “controlled, physically installed check-in point” in
connection with the visitor interface as Appellant contends is not dispositive
here, particularly when considered in light of the teachings of Matsumura

5 Although the Examiner cites an additional reference (i.e., Pradhan) in the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments (Ans. 10–11), this reference
was not cited in the rejection, nor will we consider it here. See In re Hoch,
428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970) (“Where a reference is relied on to
support a rejection, whether or not in a ‘minor capacity,’ there would appear
to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of
the rejection.”).
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

12
and Lamoureux as the Examiner indicates. See Ans. 10 (citing Lamoureux
Fig. 14 and Matsumura ¶ 7). That Matsumura’s paragraph 7 notes that a
company’s employees possess mobile terminals as company equipment, and
that a visitor in Moore is authenticated using the visitor’s employer
authentication credentials entered by the visitor in paragraph 43 only further
bolsters the Examiner’s conclusion that providing the visitor interface via
mobile devices in Moore’s Figure 3 would have been at least an obvious
variation. See Ans. 13 (noting that the visitor in Moore could be an
employee with an employer-issued mobile terminal, such as that described in
Matsumura’s paragraph 7).
To the extent that using mobile devices to provide the visitor interface
in the system of Moore’s Figure 3 to obtain the commonly understood
benefits of such an adaptation as the Examiner proposes would have been
uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the skill level of ordinarily skilled
artisans, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a
contention. Rather, such an update is analogous to the conventional
electronic updates to mechanical devices noted in Leapfrog, and reasonably
comports with technological trends that are common in the electronics
industry. See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1161 (“Applying modern electronics to
older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years.”).
Appellant’s arguments regarding Moore’s alleged shortcomings in
this regard (Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 8) are unavailing, for they do not
show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited
references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

13
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Matsumura for at least suggesting detecting that the mobile device used in
connection with Moore’s visitor interface is associated with a specific
platform of plural platforms. See Final Act. 14; Ans. 5, 12, 17–18, 24.
Matsumura’s service management section 24 is a system interface that
provides, among other things, adapter functions that (1) determine the type
of accessing mobile terminal; (2) determine the type and version of the
operating system (OS) running on the terminal; and (3) convert data to a
format suitable for the terminal. See Matsumura ¶¶ 69, 78. By determining
the particular type and version of the mobile terminal’s operating system,
Matsumura at least suggests detecting the terminal’s specific platform of
plural platforms. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br.
13–16, 21), we see no reason why ordinarily skilled artisans could not
provide such a capability in connection with mobile devices used in
connection with Moore’s visitor interface under the Examiner’s proposed
combination. Such an enhancement uses prior art elements predictably
according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Lamoureux for at least suggesting identifying a specific platform adapter
corresponding to the specific platform. Final Act. 15; Ans. 6, 13–14, 17–19,
21. As shown in Lamoureux’s Figure 8, Lamoureux’s system includes a
mobile interface 810 that supports adapters for each supported mobile
platform, such as Android, iOS, etc. Lamoureux ¶ 123. The mobile
interface includes a mobile translation interface that converts or translates
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

14
information from the system into a mobile device operating system-friendly
format and vice-versa. Id.
Given this multi-platform adapter support and data conversion
functionality, we see no reason why this functionality could not be provided
in connection with the Moore/Matsumura system as the Examiner proposes,
particularly in light of Matsumura’s adapter functions that (1) determine the
type of accessing mobile terminal; (2) determine the type and version of the
operating system (OS) running on the terminal; and (3) convert data to a
format suitable for the terminal. See Matsumura ¶¶ 69, 78. The Examiner’s
articulated rationale for the combination, namely to organize Matsumura’s
conversion software as a set of adapters in light of Lamoureux, where each
adapter is associated with a particular platform (Ans. 6), has at least a
rational basis on this record and has not been persuasively rebutted.
Given this functionality, the cited prior art also at least suggests
sending to the mobile device a response, namely Moore’s login form (3), to
the request, namely redirect message (2D), that, in light of Lamoureux,
would be generated by a specific identified platform adapter as the Examiner
proposes. See Final Act. 13–15; Ans. 6, 12–13, 17–21. Appellant’s
arguments regarding Matsumura’s and Lamoureux’s individual
shortcomings in this regard (Appeal Br. 13–21; Reply Br. 6, 9–11, 16–20)
do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the
cited references’ collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s articulated reason to
combine the references. See Final Act. 14–15; Ans. 6, 10, 13–14. Prior art
is analogous if it is (1) from the same field of endeavor regardless of the
problem addressed, or (2) reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

15
which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Here, the cited references are at least reasonably pertinent to
Appellant’s problem because (1) Moore pertains to computer-based
authentication as shown in Figure 3; (2) Matsumura’s system provides
mobile service that, among other things, authenticates the user as noted in
the Abstract; and (3) Lamoureux’s system uses an interface that supports
different mobile platforms as noted in paragraph 123. That Lamoureux’s
system is used for employment searches as Appellant indicates (Appeal Br.
17; Reply Br. 6, 9) is of no consequence here, for Lamoureux’s system
nevertheless includes multi-platform functionality for mobile devices that is
at least reasonably pertinent to Appellant’s claimed invention. In short, we
find the cited references constitute analogous art, and the Examiner’s basis
for combining their teachings is supported by articulated reasoning with
rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–6 not argued separately with particularity.

Claims 12–17 and 20
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12
reciting functions similar to those recited in claim 1, but adding that the
management credential corresponds to a secure certificate or a Kerberos
profile. See Final Act. 18 (rejecting claim 12 on the same basis as claims 1
and 5) Ans. 25 (explaining why Moore’s management credential
corresponds to a secure certificate in paragraph 43).
Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 21–36;
Reply Br. 20–21), we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

16
Moore, Matsumura, and Lamoureux for their respective teachings as well as
their combinability for the reasons noted previously. Nor are we persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the signed and encrypted token in
Moore’s paragraph 43 for at least suggesting that the management
credential, namely the credentials or other identifying information (4), at
least corresponds to a secure certificate, namely the corresponding ID-token
(5) that is generated, signed, and encrypted in accordance with the WS-
Federation standard responsive to the identity provider STS 220 receiving
those credentials. See Moore ¶¶ 43–44; Fig. 3.
Appellant’s contention that the Examiner improperly relied on the
“Web Services Federation Language” Version 1.2 document, which,
according to Appellant, was not properly cited nor designated as a new
ground of rejection in the Answer (Reply Br. 21), is a petitionable matter
that is not before us.6 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a) (noting that any request
seeking review of the Examiner’s failure to designate a new ground of
rejection must be made via a petition filed before filing a Reply Brief).
Where, as here, no such petition was filed, Appellant’s arguments regarding
any alleged new ground of rejection in the Answer are, therefore, waived.
See id.; see also MPEP § 1208(I).
Appellant’s contention that the cited prior art does not show or
suggest receiving data generated by the management credential from the
client device (Reply Br. 20–21) is likewise unavailing. First, this argument

6 See MPEP § 706.01 (“[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues
pertaining to objections and formal matters which are not properly before the
Board.”); see also MPEP § 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily hear a
question that should be decided by the Director on petition . . . .”).

Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

17
was raised for the first time in the Reply Brief and is, therefore, waived as
untimely. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); compare Appeal Br. 21–22 (arguing
the three emphasized detecting, identifying, and sending limitations) with
Reply Br. 20–21 (arguing the unemphasized receiving limitation that follows
the emphasized sending limitation). Nor has good cause been shown to raise
these new arguments in the first instance in the Reply Brief.
But even if these arguments in the Reply Brief were timely raised—
which they were not—we still find them unpersuasive. Among other things,
Appellant’s new argument is apparently premised on the notion that the ID-
token in Moore’s paragraphs 43 and 44 is mapped to the recited
management credential. See Reply Br. 20–21 (replacing the term
“management credential” with “ID-token” in brackets in the disputed
receiving clause). But as noted previously, the Examiner mapped the recited
management credential to the credentials or other identifying information (4)
in Moore’s Figure 3 in rejecting claim 12. See Final Act. 18 (rejecting claim
12 on the same basis as claims 1 and 5); see also Final Act. 13 (mapping the
recited “management credential” to the credentials or other identifying
information (4) in Moore’s Figure 3); Ans. 4, 12 (same).
As noted previously, these credentials in Moore at least correspond to
a secure certificate, namely the corresponding ID-token (5) that is generated,
signed, and encrypted responsive to the identity provider STS 220 receiving
those credentials. See Moore ¶¶ 43–44; Fig. 3. Because Appellant’s
arguments do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions in this regard, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection for that additional reason.
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

18
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 12, and claims 13–17 and 20 not argued separately with
particularity.

THE REJECTION OVER MOORE, HYLAND, AND SHAO
Regarding independent claim 7, the Examiner finds that Moore
discloses every recited element except for (1) the application corresponds to
a webview of a native application, and (2) the received identity assertion
request including a user-agent string that is examined to determine that the
application corresponds to a webview of a native application rather than a
browser. Final Act. 19–20. The Examiner, however, cites Hyland and Shao
for curing the first and second deficiencies, respectively, in concluding that
the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 20.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Hyland and Shao is
misplaced because, among other things, Hyland’s teaching that a native
application may be substituted with a browser does not teach or suggest the
recited determination, nor is a browser the same as a webview of a native
application. Appeal Br. 36–38; Reply Br. 21–22. Appellant adds that
Shao’s user-agent string identifies the type of device, but is not sent in a
request for an identity assertion, let alone used to determine that the
application corresponds to a webview of a native application as claimed.
Appeal Br. 38–39; Reply Br. 22–23.
Despite these contentions, we see no error in the Examiner’s rejection
based on the cited references’ collective teachings. First, we see no reason
why Moore’s identity assertion request, namely redirect message (2D), could
not include a user-agent string, such as the user-agent string in Shao’s
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

19
paragraph 24 as the Examiner proposes, to identify the type of device and/or
browser that is used in connection with this request. On this record, we see
no reason why this string-based identification functionality could not be
provided in connection with Hyland’s system in Figure 4 that can substitute
a native application 436 with mobile browser 432 in operation as noted in
paragraph 50 as the Examiner proposes. This proposed combination at least
suggests a system that effectively determines that the application
corresponds to a webview of a native application rather than a browser by
examining the string. We reach this conclusion noting the Examiner’s
construing the term “determining” to include substitution—a substitution
that must involve determining the things that are substituted, namely the
browser and native application, as the Examiner indicates. See Ans. 26.
Although Hyland’s paragraph 50 does not indicate explicitly that the
mobile native application 436 has webview capabilities, ordinarily skilled
artisans would nonetheless at least infer as much given that the native
application is substituted with a browser that enables viewing web content.
Providing commensurate capabilities with either alternative would have
been at least an obvious variation to, among other things, retain the ability to
view web pages regardless of whether the browser or native application was
invoked. To the extent that Appellant contends that providing such viewing
capabilities in connection with Hyland’s native application would have been
uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the skill level of ordinarily skilled
artisans (see Appeal Br. 39; Reply Br. 21–22), there is no persuasive
evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 9 and 10 not argued separately with particularity.
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

20
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 8,
11, 18, and 19. Final Act. 22–26. Because these rejections are not argued
separately with particularity (see Appeal Br. 39–40), we are not persuaded of
error in these rejections for the reasons previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)
/Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 12–
17, 20
103 Moore,
Matsumura,
Lamoureux
1–6, 12–17,
20

7, 9, 10 103 Moore,
Hyland,
Shao
7, 9, 10
8 103 Moore,
Hyland,
Shao,
Matsumura,
Lamoureux
8
11 103 Moore,
Hyland,
Shao,
Rudraraju
11
18 103 Moore,
Matsumura,
Lamoureux,
Rudraraju
18
19 103 Moore,
Matsumura,
Lamoureux,
Chung
19
Overall
outcome
1−20
Appeal 2019-000436
Application 14/739,975

21
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).

AFFIRMED