Ex Parte 7,591,005 et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 29, 2014

95001434 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014)

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. 95/001,434 08/31/2010 7,591,005 QUES-001/00US 301863-2002 4416 8791 7590 08/29/2014 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER RIMELL, SAMUEL G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ QUEST SOFTWARE, INC. Requester and Respondent v. CENTRIFY CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant ____________ Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, ANDREW J. DILLON, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 2 Patent Owner Centrify Corporation (“Patent Owner”) appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1- 9.1 Third Party Requester Quest Software, Inc. (“Third Party Requester”) responds to the Patent Owner’s appeal.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a). An oral hearing was conducted with the Requester and Patent Owner on July 30, 2014.3 We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE United States Patent 7,591,005 B2 (hereinafter the “’005 Patent”), issued to Paul Moore on September 15, 2009, is the subject of the current inter partes reexamination. The ’005 Patent is the subject of a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which is currently stayed. See PO App. Br. 3. 1 See Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief, filed April 17, 2012 (hereinafter “PO App. Br.”), at 3; Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 17, 2012, incorporating by reference the Examiner’s Right of Appeal Notice, mailed January 24, 2012 (hereinafter “RAN”). The Patent Owner also filed a reply brief. See Patent Owner’s Rebuttal Brief, filed August 14, 2012 (hereinafter “PO Reply Br.”). 2 See Third Party Requester’s Respondent Brief, filed May 10, 2012 (hereinafter “TPR Resp. Br.”). 3 See Transcript of Oral Hearing dated July 30, 2014 (hereinafter “Tr.”). Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 3 THE INVENTION The ’005 Patent generally relates to a method of detecting when a user logs into a Unix computer that a user’s local log-in name should be replaced by a network log-in name for network authentication. ’005 Patent, Abstract. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the appealed subject matter, has not been amended during reexamination and reads as follows: 1. A computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the system to perform operations comprising: detecting when a user attempts to log into the computing system; determining if a local log-in name supplied by the user should be replaced by a network log-in name used for network- wide authentication, wherein the determination comprises searching for the local log-in name in a mapping table, the mapping table being stored in a database on a second computing system that is accessible via a network; replacing the local log-in name with the network log-in name if so determined; and sending the log-in name to an authenticator to authenticate the user for logging into the computing system. App. Br., Claims App’x (emphasis added). PRIOR ART REJECTIONS The Examiner relies on the following references: Hewlitt-Packard Company, HP CIFS Client A.01.09 Administrator's Guide: HP=UX 11.0 and 11i version 1 and 2, August 2003 (“HP Administrator’s Guide”) Samba Team, 5mb.conf.5.html manual, December 15,2003 (“Samba Suite Configuration File”) Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 4 University of Illinois, Pam authsrv.5 manual, February 18,2003 (“Pam Module”) Mike Eisler et al., Managing NFS and NIS 1, 32-33, 43-46 (2nd ed. July 1, 2001) (“Eisler”) The Examiner adopts, or adopts with modification, the following rejections proposed by the Requester: 1. The rejection of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated HP Administrator’s Guide. 2. The rejection of Claims 2 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Samba Suite Configuration File and HP Administrator’s Guide. 3. The rejection of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Pam Module and HP Administrator’s Guide. 4. The rejection of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Pam Module and Samba Suite Configuration File. 5. The rejection of Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Samba Suite Configuration File and Eisler. 6. The rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Pam Module and HP Administrator’s Guide. ISSUES Only issues contested by the Patent Owner and Third Party Requester have been considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii)(2011); In re Jung, Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 5 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010). The issues before us are: 1. Did the Examiner err by finding that a server computer is within the scope of the claimed computing system? 2. Did the Examiner err by rejecting the instant claims as anticipated by HP Administrator’s Guide? 3. Did the Examiner err by rejecting the instant claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the cited prior art combinations? ANALYSIS CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Computing System The crux of the dispute here is whether a server computer is within the scope of the claimed computing system. See PO App. Br 11-16; TPR Resp. Br. 6. We therefore begin our analysis by first considering the scope and meaning of the “computing system,” which must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the disclosure in the ’005 patent. See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (during a reexamination proceeding, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations from the specification are not read into the claims). Patent Owner asserts that the Specification makes clear that the claimed computing system is limited only to a user computer. PO App. Br. Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 6 11-12. Particularly, according to the Patent Owner, construing the claimed computing system to be a user computer or a server computer is inconsistent with the Specification. See PO App. Br. 11-12; PO Reply Br. 3-6. The Examiner, on the other hand, finds that “patent owner is using an overly narrow interpretation of the claim language that is not supported by the specification and reading limitations into the claims.” RAN 12. Patent Owner’s arguments lack merit and we find them unpersuasive. For example, Patent Owner contends that only user computers, not server computers, have physically connected keyboards. See PO App. Br. 11 (“Although a user typically also logs into a server computer via a keyboard, as is well known in the art, the user’s keyboard is NOT physically connected to the server computer . . . .”). Shortly thereafter, Patent Owner expressly admits that a user computer, such as the depicted Unix computer with the physically connected keyboard, may be a server computer. PO App. Br. 11; PO Reply Br. 4. As such, use of a physically connected keyboard fails to support Patent Owner’s contention. Also, as Third Party Requester points out, certain users may log onto a server computer via a directly-connected keyboard. TPR Resp. Br. 7. Patent Owner’s reliance on the Specification’s use of “Unix computer” and “Unix host computer” to limit the claimed computing system only to a user computer is also unwarranted. PO App. Br. 11; see also PO Reply Br. 4-5. First, we note that the Specification here does not express a clear intent to deviate from the term’s plain meaning. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 7 in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must clearly express an intent to redefine the term.”)(citations omitted). In other words, even assuming arguendo that the Specification only discloses a single embodiment with a user computer, this alone would still not limit the scope of the claimed computing system. Moreover, as Patent Owner admits, a “Unix computer” may be a server computer and further a “Unix host computer” is known in the art to refer to a server computer. See e.g., PO App. Br. 11-12 (“[T]he term ‘host computer’ is sometimes considered to be a server computer, and not a user computer.”). Therefore, we find Patent Owner’s argument unconvincing. We similarly reject the Patent Owner’s contention that it is “irrelevant” that a user computer may “function as a server” since “at the time of log-in covered by the claims, the computer being logged into is only functioning as a user computer and not a server computer.” PO App. Br. 12. The claims here include no such functional limitation, nor any time restraint. See PO App. Br., Claims App’x. This argument, then, is not commensurate with the scope of the claims and is thus unpersuasive. We next find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that the Specification’s definition of local login name is inconsistent with construing a computing system to be a user computer or a server computer. Patent Owner here appears to argue that the defined local login name “makes it clear that the computing system which is being logged into is one with a single user account on that computer.” PO App. Br. 12. In other words, because there is only a single user account on the computer, it cannot be a server computer which would have more than one user account. This Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 8 argument, however, mischaracterizes the recited definition. The Specification states that the username is unique to a single user account within that computer, not that the computer may only have one user account. See ’005 Patent, col. 3, ll. 43-46. Then, for the first time in the Reply Brief, Patent Owner relies on the Background of the Specification to assert that “the specification and drawings make it abundantly clear that the only reason the invention exists is for use on a user or client computer and it has no application for use in connection with a server computer and does contain any disclosure which relates in any way to a user logging into a server computer.” PO Reply Br. 3. Patent Owner further asserts, again for the first time in the Reply Brief, that: The invention specifically deals with the problem which is created when those user computers are connected to a network authenticator for authentication because the special “root” account cannot be authenticated by a network authenticator since all user account names on the authenticator must be unique. Since all Unix computers on a network normally use the root account for use by network administrators, the uniqueness required by a network authenticator does not exist. PO Reply Br. 3-4.4 4 As noted above, these arguments were raised for the first time in the Reply Brief and are therefore are untimely. Compare PO Reply Br. 3-4 with App. Br. 11-13. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[The reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”). As such, Third Party Requester, as well as the Examiner, have not been afforded the opportunity to respond to Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 9 While we recognize that the Background of the ’005 Patent describes issues that may arise logging into a stand-alone or user computer, we nevertheless find the Patent Owner’s argument unpersuasive. First, the claims here do not recite a computer or a Unix computer but instead expressly recite a notably broader term -- a computing system. Second, the ’005 Patent Specification includes no definition limiting the claim only to a user computer. To the contrary, the ’005 Patent Specification refers to a Unix host computer, which Patent Owner admits is known to sometimes refer to a server computer. See PO App. Br. 12 (citing ’005 Patent, col. 2, ll. 36-39). Moreover, as Patent Owner also acknowledges, a Unix computer can be used as a server. PO App. Br. 11; PO Reply Br. 4. Third, the ’005 Patent Specification identifies that the root user login is one example of an issue addressed by the invention. See e.g., ’005 Patent, col. 2, ll. 9-12 and 26-32. Further, as Third Party Requester points out, neither the claims nor the Specification are limited to only the root user issue. Tr. 16-17. See also Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[P]atentees [are] not required to include within each of their claims all of [the] advantages or features described as significant or important in the written description.”). Finally, we are not convinced that the special login issue would be completely inapplicable to a server computer. Patent Owner here only addresses the issue of root user login, not other special user logins, and these arguments. For the reasons outlined hereafter though, we find Patent Owner’s arguments unpersuasive. Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 10 solely relies on attorney argument to support its contention. See PO Reply Br. 4-5; see also Tr. 19. Without more, we find Patent Owner’s argument unavailing. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above and set forth by the Examiner, we find that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification, a skilled artisan would understand the claimed computing system may be a server computer. Network wide authentication Patent Owner here relies on the same arguments in asserting that the claimed network wide authentication should be limited to authenticating a user computer over a network. See App. Br. 12. For at least the reasons discussed above and set forth by the Examiner, we find these arguments unpersuasive. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER HP ADMINISTRATOR’S GUIDE Claims 1-8 Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to HP Administrator’s Guide rely on the contention that the claimed computing system is limited only to a user computer. See PO App. Br. 13; Reply Br 2. However, as discussed above, we reject the Patent Owner’s proposed construction limiting the claimed computing system to only a user computer. As such, we agree with the Third Party Requester, and the Examiner, that the claimed computing system does not exclude a server computer and therefore find Patent Owner’s arguments unpersuasive. Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 11 We also agree with the Third Party Requester that HP Administrator’s Guide’s use of a mapping table to replace a local login name to a network login name and then sending the network login name to log into a server satisfies the claimed determining and sending limitations. TPR Resp. Br. 8- 10. For example, HP Administrator’s Guide expressly discloses that “PAM NTLM supports username mapping to map a local UNIX user name to a remote NT domain user name to use for authentication.” HP Administrator’s Guide p. 106)(emphasis added). Patent Owner presents no further arguments of patentability with respect to HP Administrator’s Guide. We, therefore, find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 as anticipated by HP Administrator’s Guide and affirm the rejection. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SAMBA SUITE CONFIGURATION FILE AND HP ADMINISTRATOR’S GUIDE Claims 2 and 6 Patent Owner presents no separate arguments of patentability with respect to claims 2 and 6. See PO App. Br. 16 (noting that HP Administrator’s Guide teaches the additional elements of claims 2 and 8). As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed computing system may be a server computer and agree that HP Administrator’s Guide anticipates claims 1 and 5 from which claims 2 and 6 depend. See RAN 7; see also TPR Resp. Br. 10-11. Because we reject Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to base claims 1 and 5, we are also unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 6 as obvious Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 12 over the Samba Suit Configuration File and HP Administrator’s Guide combined. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PAM MODULE AND HP ADMINISTRATOR’S GUIDE Claims 1-9 Patent Owner here again relies on the contention that the claimed computing system is limited to a user computer for original claims 1-8 (PO App. Br. 16-17), as well as for newly added claim 9. PO App. Br. 21-22. For example, with respect to claim 9, Patent Owner argues that “Pam [Module] does not teach authenticating the user to the user’s computer.” PO App. Br. 22. As discussed above, we do not agree that the claimed computing system is limited to only a user computer. Instead, we agree with the Third Party Requester, and the Examiner, that the claimed computing system does not exclude a server computer. We also agree then with the Third Party Requester, and the Examiner, that Pam Module’s use of a mapping table to replace a local login name to a network login name and then sending the network login name to login to a server satisfies the claimed determining and sending limitations. See TPR Resp. Br. 11-12; 15-16; RAN 12. Patent Owner presents no further arguments of patentability with respect to Pam Module or HP Administrator’s Guide. We, therefore, find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 as obvious over Pam Module and HP Administrator’s Guide combined and affirm the rejections. Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 13 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PAM MODULE AND SAMBA SUIT CONFIGURATION FILE Claims 1-8 Patent Owner here again relies on the contention that the claimed computing system is limited to a user computer. PO App. Br. 17-19. For example, Patent Owner contends that “Pam [Module] does not teach authenticating the user to the user’s computer.” PO App. Br. 22. Patent Owner also challenges the teachings of Samba Suite Configuration File, asserting that Samba Suite Configuration File, like Pam Module and HP Administrator’s Guide, uses the described mapping tables “so that a DOS or Windows user can log into a particular server, the Unix box, the DOS or Windows machine being the user computer.” PO. App. Br. 18. As discussed above, we do not agree that the claimed computing system is limited to only a user computer. Instead, we agree with the Third Party Requester, and the Examiner, that the claimed computing system does not exclude a server computer. We also agree then with the Third Party Requester, and the Examiner, that Pam Module’s use of a mapping table to replace a local login name to a network login name and then sending the network login name to login to a server satisfies the claimed determining and sending limitations. See TPR Resp. Br. 12-13. Additionally, Patent Owner argues that “Pam [module] merely provides that a local log-in name is mapped to a user name in the authsrv database, and there is no teaching or suggestion that such replacement (to the extent it occurs) uses a network log-in name used for network-wide authentication, as required by element (c).” PO App. Br. 17. But Patent Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 14 Owner fails to persuasively respond to the Third Party Requester’s rebuttal that a skilled artisan would understand “authsrv” to “implement[] a network authentication service on Unix based networks,” citing Ewy as support. PO App. Br. 18. We are thus unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. We, therefore, find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 as obvious over Pam Module and Samba Suite Configuration File combined and affirm the rejection. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SAMBA SUITE CONFIGURATION FILE AND EISLER Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to Samba Suite Configuration File rely on the contention that the claimed computing system is limited to a user computer. See PO App. Br. 19-21. However, as discussed above, we reject the Patent Owner’s proposed construction limiting the claimed computing system to only a user computer. As such, we agree with the Third Party Requester, and the Examiner, that the claimed computing system does not exclude a server and that Samba Suite Configuration File teaches the claimed limitation. See TPR Resp. Br. 13-15; RAN 8-12. Patent Owner presents no further arguments of patentability with respect to Samba Suite Configuration File and Eisler. We, therefore, find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 as obvious over Samba Suite Configuration File and Eisler and affirm the rejection. Appeal 2014-005266 Reexamination Control 95/001,434 Patent 7,591,005 15 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9 is affirmed. Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79. This is a final decision. Parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2. For judicial review of decisions arising out of proceedings referenced in 37 C.F.R. § 90.1, the notice and service requirements are governed by the pertinent regulations in effect on July 1, 2012. AFFIRMED peb PATENT OWNER: BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: COOLEY LLP ATTN: Patent Group 777 6th Street, Nw., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20001