Ex Parte Alison et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 201613425165 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/425,165 03/20/2012 Thomas Alison 079894.0405 9734 91230 7590 Baker Botts L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue. 6th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 12/28/2016 EXAMINER W OLDEMARIAM, NEGA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2433 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2016 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): ptomaill @bakerbotts.com ptomail2 @ bakerbotts .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS ALISON, MICHA BERDICHEVSKY, BOSMAT ELDAR, and SHASHANK PANDIT Appeal 2016-005078 Application 13/425,165 Technology Center 2400 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JON M. JURGOVAN, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.2 1 The Appeal Brief indicates Facebook, Inc. is the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Mar. 20, 2012 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed Mar. 12, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed Oct. 9, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Feb. 11, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Apr. 11, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2016-005078 Application 13/425,165 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed authorizing access to social-networking data involving user authentication after download of a software application. (Spec. Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising, using one or more processors associated with a social networking system: authenticating, using one or more of the processors, a user of a mobile device as being a particular user of the social networking system; receiving, after authenticating the user of the mobile device, a first request from the mobile device to install a software application on the mobile device for accessing social networking data associated with the user from the social-networking system; sending, in response to the first request, a first data to the mobile device comprising the software application and a first installation identifier (ID); receiving a second request from the mobile device to authorize the software application to access the social networking data associated with the user from the social networking system, the second request comprising a second installation ID, wherein the second installation ID is based on the first installation ID; evaluating, using one or more of the processors, the second installation ID for validity; and sending, to the mobile device, a response to the second request in accordance with the evaluation of the validity of the second installation ID. (App. Br. 13 — Claims App’x.) REJECTION Claims 1—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Lee (US 2012/0185912 Al, published July 19, 2012) and Bhatia et al. (US 2013/0014222 Al, published Jan. 10, 2013). (Final Act. 5-12.) 2 Appeal 2016-005078 Application 13/425,165 FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS Appellants argue that the cited references fail to disclose the claimed feature of “receiving, after authenticating the user of the mobile device, a first request from the mobile device to install a software application on the mobile device.” (App. Br. 5—8.) The Examiner finds that Lee teaches that a content server 320 receives a request from a mobile device 300 to download an application, concluding that this disclosure teaches the claimed feature. (Final Act. 3 and Ans. 2 citing Lee Tflf 54, 65, Fig. 4 — steps 331 and 431.) ANALYSIS We agree with Appellants’ argument. Lee actually suggests the opposite of what is claimed, namely, receiving a request to download a software application before, not after, user authentication. Authentication is generally understood to refer to verification of the identity of a user. See, e.g., authentication definition, Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th Ed. 2002). In Lee, a user identifier is transmitted from the mobile station to the operator in an application authorization request occurring after the mobile station downloads the application. This can be seen in Lee Figures 3 and 4 in which the request to download at step 331 or 431 (1 54) and the responsive download of the application at 333 or 433 (1 55) occur before mobile station requests application authorization with user identifier in step 337 or 437 (1 58). For ease of reference, Lee Figure 4 is shown below. 3 Appeal 2016-005078 Application 13/425,165 FIG. 4 Figure 4 of Lee shows mobile station “request to download application” (step 431) and “download application” (step 433) occurring before transmitting the “application authorization request” (step 437) including a user identifier to the operator. The Examiner’s finding that Lee implicitly teaches authenticating or identifying the user of the mobile device before authorization of the software application (Ans. 10) is unsupported by the teachings of Lee. Furthermore, the Examiner’s finding does not correspond to the actual claim language reciting that receiving the request to install the software application is performed after user authentication. The Examiner’s reliance on Bhatia’s 4 Appeal 2016-005078 Application 13/425,165 teaching of an authentication token (id.) does not overcome the noted deficiency of Lee. As Lee suggests user authentication after the request to download a software application, which is the opposite of what is claimed, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1,18, and 19, or their dependent claims 2—17. DECISION We reverse the rejection of claims 1—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation