Ex Parte Boldyrev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 2016

13073696 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/073,696 03/28/2011 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 05/25/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sergey Boldyrev 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P5098US01 8388 EXAMINER TABOR, AMARE F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2016 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SERGEY BOLDYREV and IAN JUSTIN OLIVER1 Appeal2014-005929 Application 13/073,696 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. Invention Appellants disclose an approach for providing single sign-on for computation closures in which a single sign-on management platform 1 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-005929 Application 13/073,696 determines to create a single sign-on computation closure in response to an initiation of a single sign-on authentication session. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized and disputed recitation [i] labeled, is mustrative: 1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal based, at least in part, on the following: [i] a single sign-on computation closure created in response to an initiation of a single sign-on authentication session; one or more computation entities that are to execute at least one other computation closure under the single sign-on authentication session; and at least one determination, by at least one processor, to transfer the single sign-on computation closure to the one or more computation entities. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Hinton et al. (US 2012/001578 Al; Jan. 12, 2012). Final Act. 2-7. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding Hinton discloses recitation [i] of claim 1? ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hinton's creation of a single sign-on (SSO) in a federated single sign-on (F-SSO) system discloses recitation [i]. Final Act. 2-3 (citing, e.g., Hinton i-f 46). In particular, the 2 Appeal2014-005929 Application 13/073,696 Examiner interprets the claimed computation closure as encompassing computational elements, and that Hinton's timestamp, user identity, or HTTP-based Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) assertions having authentication data are computational elements that represent computation closures. Final Act. 8 (citing Spec. i-f 4; Hinton Abstract, i-f 46); Ans. 7. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the Specification "merely provides computational closures as an example of computation elements." Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 5-6. That is, Appellants submit that a computational closure, such as the one claimed, is a computational element, but computational elements are not necessarily computational closures. Rather, Appellants argue, "[t]he specification defines 'computation closure' as[] 'a particular computation procedure together with relations and communications among various processes .... "' App. Br. 7 (citing Spec. i-f 29). Appellants further argue "none of the alleged attributes of Hinton's F-SSO, namely the timestamp, the user's identity, and the HTTP-based SAML data format assertion, constitute a particular computation procedure together with relations and communications among various processes." App. Br. 7. Appellants' arguments are persuasive. The Specification discloses that computation closures are a type of computation element, but does not disclose that all computation elements are computation closures. Spec. i-f 4. Moreover, the Specification clearly defines the claimed computation closure as a particular computation procedure together with relations and communications among various processes: 3 Appeal2014-005929 Application 13/073,696 As used herein, the term "computation closure" identifies a particular computation procedure together with relations and communications among various processes including passing arguments, sharing process results, flow of data and process results, etc. The computation closures (e.g., a granular reflective set of instructions, data, and/or related execution context or state) provide the capability of slicing of computations for processes and transmitting the computation slices between devices, infrastructures and information sources. Spec. i129. Appellants are entitled to be their own lexicographers and may do so by clearly providing a definition of a term, in the disclosure itself, "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants have provided sufficiently reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision in defining the term "computation closure" such that an artisan of ordinary skill would interpret the claimed computation closure as "identify[ing] a particular computation procedure together with relations and communications among various processes." Spec. i1 29. The Examiner's findings do not show that Hinton's timestamp, user identity, or SAML assertions identify a particular computation procedure together with relations and communications among various processes. Moreover, we agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 5) that the Examiner's additional citation to the Hinton F-SSO as a whole as alternatively disclosing the claimed computation closure (Ans. 8 (citing Hinton Figs. 3, 5-7)) does not cure the noted deficiency of Hinton. In particular, the Examiner does not show that the F-SSO process represents a computation closure-an identification of a particular computation procedure together with relations and communications among various processes---created in response to an 4 Appeal2014-005929 Application 13/073,696 initiation of a single sign-on authentication session. Therefore, the Examiner's findings do not show that Hinton discloses "a single sign-on computation closure created in response to an initiation of a single sign-on authentication session," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-8, which depend therefrom. We also do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) rejection of claims 9-20, which contain similar recitations. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. REVERSED 5