Ex Parte Arnold et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2013

10499275 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013)

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.
10/499,275 02/09/2005 Oksana Arnold DE920010100US1 2290
30449 7590 01/31/2013
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
EXAMINER
BENGZON, GREG C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2013 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 THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte OKSANA ARNOLD, ANDREAS WERNER,
ULRICH KRAEMER, and THOMAS LENTZ
____________

Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-9 and 27-35. Claims 10-26 have been canceled. App. Br. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to computer-based technology for
handling end-to-end business transactions in a TCP/IP environment. See
generally Abstract. The claimed subject matter enables logon, provides a
pool of IP addresses for allocation to user devices, and stores the user’s IP
address together with attributes for accounting, authentication, and
authorization (AAA). See id. Claims 1 and 27 are illustrative and read as
follows, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for handling end-to-end business transactions between a
user and at least one sales-entity and/or service provider via a TCP/IP
controlled computer network, wherein providing a transaction managing
instance for managing said end-to-end business transactions, said method
comprising:
providing a pool of IP addresses on side of said transaction managing
instance;
performing an access authentication based single sign-on by said user
managed by said transaction managing instance wherein said transaction
managing instance is allocating an IP address out of said pool of IP
addresses to said user, when said user initiates an online session for
conducting at least one end-to-end business transaction with said at least
one sales-entity and/or service provider;
generating a session context including said allocated IP address and
user identification information and continuously monitored transaction
events by said user;
transmitting an authorization request from the at least one sales-entity
and/or service provider, or another service provider, to said transaction
managing instance, when an at least one end-to-end business transaction
with said at least one sales-entity and/or service provider occurs, wherein the
transaction managing instance validates said user's authorization for said at
least one business transaction based on said session context;
monitoring said online session of said user and detecting if said online
session is terminated; and
Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

3
invalidating said allocated IP address and said session context, if
termination of said online session is detected, and providing said IP address
back to said pool of IP addresses.
27. A method for handling an end-to-end business transaction
between a user and an e-Service provider consisting of at least one sales-
entity and/or service provider via a TCP/IP controlled computer network and
a server instance for managing the end-to-end business transaction, said
method comprising:
performing a log-on of a user to an e-Network provider in response to
the user having initiated an online session, wherein the e-Network provider,
an e-Company, a server instance, and the e-Service provider are
independently connected to an Internet, wherein a Network Access Server
within the e-Network provider is connected to the Internet and to a database
within the e-Company, wherein said performing the log-on of the user
comprises said e-Network provider authenticating the user via use of
information about the user stored in the database;
after said performing the log-on of the user, selecting a first Internet
Protocol (IP) address from a first pool of available IP addresses held by the
e-Network provider and selecting a second IP address from a second pool of
available IP addresses at the server instance;
assigning the selected first IP address to the user and then connecting
the user to the Internet via the Network Access Server;
assigning the selected second IP address to the user and generating an
IP tunneling connection that connects the user to the server instance via the
Network Access Server and the Internet, wherein said generating the IP
tunneling connection is based on the second IP address;
generating a session context that includes the second IP address;
said server instance receiving an authorization request from the e-
Service provider when the end-to-end business transaction is initiated
between the user and the e-Service provider;
responsive to said receiving the authorization request, said server
instance validating the user's authorization for the end-to-end business
transaction, wherein said validating is based on only on the second IP
address in the session context; and
Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

4
responsive to detection of a termination of the online session,
invalidating the second IP address, invalidating the session context, and
returning the second IP address to the second pool of available IP addresses.
The Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 4-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ronen (US 5,845,267; Dec. 1, 1998) and Sitaraman (US
6,427,170 B1; July 30, 2002). Ans. 4-8.
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3 and 27-35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ronen, Sitaraman, and Bendinelli (US
6,631,416 B2; Oct. 7, 2003). Ans. 8-17.

ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF RONEN AND SITARAMAN
Claim 1
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10-16;
Reply Br. 2-10) that Sitaraman does not teach (1) performing the access
authentication and (2) generating the session context as recited in claim 1
and that Ronen and Sitaraman are not properly combined. Contrary to the
Appellants’ contentions, the Examiner correctly finds that Sitaraman teaches
or suggests the recited performing access authentication and generating the
session context steps. Ans. 4-7 (citing col. 7, l. 55-col. 8, l. 25, col. 8, ll. 25-
45).
In the portion relied upon by the Examiner, Sitaraman discloses an
architecture for an IP address management system in which, when a user
attempts to log-in to a data communications network, a protocol gateway 4
queries an AAA (“authentication, authorization, and accounting”) service 10
to determine if the user is authorized and if an IP address already has been
Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

5
allocated to the user. Col. 7, ll. 58-62; see also col. 7, ll. 16-18. If an IP
address has not already been allocated to the authorized user, Sitaraman’s
dynamic IP address server 8 provides to the protocol gateway 4 an available
IP address from an IP address pool 22. Col. 8, ll. 1-5. Sitaraman’s protocol
gateway 4 allocates the IP address to the user. Col. 8, ll. 5-7.
Based on this functionality, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s position that Sitaraman teaches or suggests “performing an
access authentication based single sign-on by said user managed by said
transaction managing instance wherein said transaction managing instance is
allocating an IP address out of said pool of IP addresses to said user, when
said user initiates an online session for conducting at least one end-to-end
business transaction with said at least one sales-entity and/or service
provider,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because Sitaraman’s AAA
service 10 authenticates the user and Sitaraman’s dynamic IP address server
8 allocates the IP address to the user – that is, Sitaraman discloses two
different entities (i.e., the AAA service 10 and the dynamic IP address server
8) perform user authentication and IP address allocation when claim 1
requires that a single entity (i.e., the recited transaction managing instance)
perform both user authentication and IP address allocation. App. Br. 10-13;
Reply Br. 2-5.
Even assuming, without deciding, that claim 1 requires the recited
transaction managing instance to both (i) perform an access authentication
based single sign-on by the user managed by the transaction managing
instance and (ii) allocate an IP address out of a pool of IP addresses to the
user, Sitaraman’s protocol gateway 4 queries the AAA service 10 to
Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

6
determine whether the user is authorized (col. 7, ll. 58-62) and allocates the
IP address received from the IP address server 8 to the user (col. 8, ll. 5-7),
which teaches or suggests the performing step recited in claim 1.
Further, as the Examiner explained in response to Appellants’
assertion that a single entity is required, Sitaraman discloses that the AAA
service 10 and the IP address server 8 each can be implemented in the same
machine or server as the protocol gateway, and, thus, Sitaraman discloses a
single entity. Ans. 19 (stating the AAA service and IP address server are
implemented as a singular entity embodied by the protocol gateway) (citing
col. 6, l. 55-col. 7, l. 10). We are not persuaded that, as disclosed by
Sitaraman, the machine or server on which the protocol gateway 4, the AAA
service 10, and the dynamic IP address server 8 reside does not read on the
recited transaction managing instance. Appellants’ argument (Reply Br. 3-
4) that AAA service 10 and the dynamic IP address server 8 are two
different entities, even if they reside in the same machine, is not persuasive.
Mere speculation unsupported by factual evidence is entitled to little
probative value. Cf. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants also argue Sitaraman does not disclose “generating a
session context including said allocated IP address and user identification
information and continuously monitored transaction events by said user,” as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 5-7. We are not persuaded of
Examiner error in finding that Sitaraman teaches or suggests the recited
generating step in Sitaraman’s disclosure of maintaining user log-in and log-
out information in database for user accounting events, which also includes
the user name, an IP address, and the time at which the user logs in or out.
Ans. 6 (citing col. 8, ll. 25-45).
Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

7
Appellants, although acknowledging Sitaraman discloses user
accounting events that include user log in and log out, argue that this
disclosure does not teach or suggest generating a session content that
includes continuously monitored transaction events by the user, as found by
the Examiner. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 6. We disagree with Appellants that
“generating a session context including . . . continuously monitored
transaction events by said user” does not encompass Sitaraman’s user
accounting events that include user log in and log out. Appellants have not
pointed to any portion of their Specification or evidence of how a skilled
artisan would interpret “continuously monitored transaction events” that
would otherwise narrow the broad language of the claim to exclude user log
in and log out events. See generally App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 5-7.
Moreover, we note Appellants’ Specification, in describing the underlying
concept of their invention, indicates that “the user’s network access is
continuously monitored and it is determined if said online session is
terminated” (Spec. 4), which undermines Appellants’ argument that
Sitaraman’s user accounting events including user log out does not read on
the recited generating step because it is not a “continuously monitored
transaction event” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner improperly combined
Sitaraman’s teaching with Ronen because Ronen already discloses centrally
managing a pool of IP addresses and the combination would add costs and
technical complexity. App. Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 8-10. We are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s proposed combination of Ronen and
Sitaraman in concluding claim 1 would have been obvious (Ans. 6-7). The
Examiner indicated a reason for the combination would have been to provide
Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

8
a pool of IP addresses that are centrally managed and enable session
accounting based on the temporary IP address. Ans. 7 (citing Sitaraman,
col. 16, ll. 15-30, col. 18, ll. 10-15). In response to Appellants’ argument,
the Examiner further explained that Sitaraman’s disclosure provides a more
granular solution than Ronen and, in view of Sitaraman’s disclosure of the
cost of procuring more IP addresses, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
been motivated to combine the teaching of the references despite the
increased cost and complexity. Ans. 21.
To the extent that Appellants argue against the physical incorporation
of Sitaraman and Ronen because Ronen already discloses central
management of IP addresses, such an argument is not availing. A
determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references
does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements from one
reference into another reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . .”).
Thus, we agree that the Examiner’s proposed combination of Ronen
and Sitaraman predictably uses prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Accordingly, we find the
Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
We therefore sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim
1.
Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

9
Claims 4-9
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and claim 5 depends from claim 4.
For each claim, Appellants repeat their arguments regarding the patentability
of claim 1. App. Br. 16, 17; Reply Br. 10, 11. We are not persuaded and
refer to our previous discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding the additional features recited in claims 4 and 5, Appellants
merely summarily assert that the portion of reference cited by the Examiner
does not disclose the recited feature. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 11, 12. This
does not show error in the Examiner’s position. Accord In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.”).
Appellants further assert that the Examiner erred in not explaining
why it would have been obvious to modify Ronen to incorporate the
additional features recited in claims 4 or 5 related to the session context
(App. Br. 17, 18; Reply Br. 11, 12). We are not persuaded of Examiner
error because the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning, including
enabling session accounting, to combine Ronen and Sitaraman as discussed
above in connection with claim 1. See Ans. 6-7, 20-21. We see no reason
why this articulated reasoning would not apply equally to the additional
features recited in claims 4 and 5 related to the session context.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
rejection of claims 4 and 5.
Claim 6, which depends from claim 4, additionally recites the session
context contains a username of the user and an accounting session identifier
Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

10
related to an accounting event. For the reasons discussed above with regard
to claim 1, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ repeated argument (App. Br.
18; Reply Br. 12) that Ronen and Sitaraman fail to teach or suggest the
recited subject matter recited in claim 1.
Appellants contend that Sitaraman’s disclosure of a session number
for the IP address during the IP address allocation event does not disclose an
accounting session identifier related to an accounting event. Reply Br. 13.
We are not persuaded that Sitaraman’s disclosure of a database for
accounting events that includes a user name, an IP address, and other
information (col. 8, ll. 30-45) and disclosure of a session number for the IP
address (col. 8, ll. 20-25) does not at least suggest a session context that
includes a username of the user and an accounting session identifier related
to an accounting event, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 7, 21). Appellants’
arguments unduly focus on the specific terms present in Sitaraman’s
disclosure and ignore the capabilities of the skilled artisan. The test for
obviousness is “what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Moreover, as noted by the Court in KSR, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also
a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” 550 U.S. at 421.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and further recites the session context
further contains a class attribute for correlation of service-events. The
Examiner cites Sitaraman for this feature. Ans. 8 (citing col. 8, ll. 30-45,
col. 15, ll. 45-55); Ans. 21-22.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument that the cited portion of Sitaraman
is silent as to the session context containing a class attribute for correlation
of service-events (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 14), we are not persuaded that
Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

11
Sitaraman’s user accounting event information that includes a user name, an
IP address, and session number for the IP address discussed above relative to
claim 6 does not at least suggest a session context containing a class attribute
for correlation of service-events, as the Examiner finds. For example,
Sitaraman discloses user accounting events may be published as lists where
one list collects IP address allocation events, another list collects accounting
start events, and yet another list collects the accounting stop events. See col.
8, ll. 40-45; see also Ans. 8 (citing col. 8, ll. 30-45). Sitaraman’s disclosure
at least suggests correlating information about these types of events for a
user or an IP address from the three lists. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s finding that this disclosure at least suggests the
broad “a class attribute for correlation of service-events” recited in claim 7.
As to Appellants’ other arguments relying on the same arguments
presented regarding the combination of Ronen and Sitaraman related to
claim 1 and asserting an improper combination of Ronen and Sitaraman
(App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 13, 15), we refer to our previous discussion
regarding claims 1 and 6.
We therefore will sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 8, which depends from claim 1, recites recording or storing at
least the IP address allocated to the user together with at least one attribute
relevant for at least one of accounting, authentication, and authorization.
For the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ repeated argument (App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 15)
that Ronen and Sitaraman fail to teach or suggest the recited subject matter
recited in claim 1. Nor are we persuaded by Appellants’ mere assertions
(App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 15) that the portion of Sitaraman cited by the
Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

12
Examiner does not disclose the additional features of claim 8. Accord Lovin,
652 F.3d at 1357.
Appellants further assert with regard to claim 8 that the Examiner
erred in not explaining why it would have been obvious to modify Ronen to
incorporate the additional features recited in claim 8 (App. Br. 20; Reply Br.
15, 16). We are not persuaded of Examiner error because the Examiner has
articulated a reason with some rational underpinning, including enabling
session accounting, to combine Ronen and Sitaraman as discussed above in
connection with claim 1. See Ans. 6-7, 20-21. We see no reason why this
articulated reasoning would not apply equally to the additional features
recited in claim 8.
We therefore will sustain the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 8, we are not
persuaded, for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, by
Appellants’ repeated argument (App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 16) that Ronen and
Sitaraman fail to teach or suggest the recited subject matter recited in claim
1. Nor are we persuaded by Appellants’ mere assertions (App. Br. 21; Reply
Br. 16) that the Examiner erred in not explaining why it would have been
obvious to modify Ronen to incorporate the additional features recited in
claim 9 (App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 16). We are not persuaded of Examiner
error because the Examiner has articulated a reason with some rational
underpinning, including enabling session accounting, to combine Ronen and
Sitaraman as discussed above in connection with claim 1. See Ans. 6-7, 20-
21. We see no reason why this articulated reasoning would not apply
equally to the additional features recited in claim 9.
We therefore will sustain the rejection of claim 9.
Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

13
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF RONEN, SITARAMAN, AND BENDINELLI
Claims 2 and 3
In challenging the obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 3 as
unpatentable over Ronen, Sitaraman, and Bendinelli, Appellants refer to
previous arguments discussed above with respect to Ronen and Sitaraman.
App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 18. We will sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3
for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Claims 27-35
In rejecting independent claim 27, the Examiner cites Ronen for
disclosing “performing a log-on of a user to an e-Network provider in
response to the user having initiated an online session, wherein the e-
Network provider, an e-Company, a server instance, and the e-Service
provider are independently connected to an Internet, wherein a Network
Access Server within the e-Network provider is connected to the Internet
and to a database within the e-Company.” Ans. 9 (citing col. 5, ll. 20-50).
The Examiner, however, has not identified which specific portions at
column 5, lines 20-50 of Ronen correspond to the specific aspects set forth
in claim 27. For example, the Examiner has not identified which elements in
Ronen correspond to the e-Network provider, an e-Company, a server
instance, the e-Service provider, a Network Access Server within the e-
Network provider, and a database within the e-Company.
In response to Appellants’ proposed mapping (Table 1, App. Br. 24;
Reply Br. 20) of the cited portion of Ronen column 5 with the recited
elements to conclude (i) the recited server instance and Network Access
Server were missing from Ronen and (ii) the e-Network provider, an e-
Company, a server instance, and the e-Service provider were not
Appeal 2010-007008
Application 10/499,275

14
independently connected to an Internet, the Examiner indicated that the
recited connections need not be limited to physical connections but
encompassed logical implementations on top of physical components (Ans.
22-23) and that the recited e-Company encompasses the recited server
instance (Ans. 22). The Examiner, however, did not explain how the thirty
lines of Ronen column 5 mapped to eight elements recited by claim 27 or
whether the Examiner agreed with Appellants’ proposed mapping.
In the absence of showing by the Examiner how the elements taught
by Ronen in column 5 correspond to the various elements recited in claim
27, we cannot sustain the rejection. For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the rejections of dependent claims 28-35.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-9 but erred in rejecting
claims 27-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 27-35 is affirmed-
in-part.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

kis