Ex Parte Castellucci et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 29, 2015

12175738 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2015)

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. 12/175,738 07/18/2008 Antonio Castellucci FR920070069US1 1133 48916 7590 10/29/2015 Greg Goshorn, P.C. 9600 Escarpment Blvd. Suite 745-9 AUSTIN, TX 78749 EXAMINER JAKOVAC, RYAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2445 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2015 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 ANTONIO CASTELLUCCI and ROBERTO GUARDA ____________ Appeal 2013-009674 Application 12/175,738 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–12 and 14–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed April 1, 2013; Examiner’s Answer mailed April 25, 2013 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed August 30, 2012 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed July 18, 2008 (“Spec.”). 2 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corp. as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2013-009674 Application 12/175,738 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 17, and 18 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below (with disputed limitations in italics): 1. A method for balancing access to a shared resource in a data processing system by a plurality of exploiter entities, the method comprising: associating a privilege limit for a privileged use of the shared resource with each one of a set of active entities, comprising: receiving a connection request from an active entity of the set of active entities; collecting context information of the active entity; creating a token for authorizing the active entity to exploit the service, wherein the token is associated with the privilege limit of the active entity initialized to a starting value and the token is transmitted by the active entity in conjunction with a request for the service; and storing the collected context information of the active entity into a profile associated with the token; measuring a use indicator for each active entity, the use indicator relating to actual use of the shared resource by the respective active entity; detecting a critical condition of the shared resource; upon receiving an access request for access to the shared resource by a new one of the active entities, releasing the access granted to at least one of a set of active entities currently accessing the shared resource; and granting access to the new active entity. Br. 12 (Claim Appendix). References Lundberg et al. US 6,434,559 B1 Aug. 13, 2002 Fruchtman et al. US 2002/0099843 A1 July 25, 2002 O’Mahoney WO 2008/015659 A1 Feb. 7, 2008 Appeal 2013-009674 Application 12/175,738 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1–12, 14, 15, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lundberg and O’Mahoney. Final Act. 4–12. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lundberg, O’Mahoney, and Fruchtman. Final Act. 13. ANALYSIS Regarding the limitation, “a token for authorizing the active entity to exploit the service,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18, Appellants contend Lundberg’s “units of access” do not teach Appellants’ “tokens” because “a unit of access is merely a data value associated with client’s use of a critical resource.” Br. 8. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention. The Examiner finds that Appellants’ token is a software data structure that is used to authorize a user to exploit a service. Ans. 4. “Token” is described in the Specification as being used “for authorizing access to the corresponding client.” Spec. 6, lines 18–19. Lundberg suggests that the client has a record of the “units of access.” See Lundberg, column 2, lines 57–58 (“Each client 104a through 104n has a priority number of predetermined units of access to the critical resource 100 for a given period of units.”); column 3, lines 4–6 (“The priority number of predetermined units of access for a given client can in one embodiment be determined by a given access plan paid for by the client.”). We agree with the Examiner that Lundberg’s “units of access” are also software data structures that authorize a user to access a resource. Ans. 4 (citing Lundberg column 3, lines 4–15). Therefore, Lundberg’s “units of Appeal 2013-009674 Application 12/175,738 4 access” teach “a token for authorizing the active entity to exploit the service,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18. Appellants argue the limitation, “the token is transmitted by the active entity in conjunction with a request for the service,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18, is not taught by Lundberg. Br. 8–9. Specifically, Appellants argue Lundberg teaches storing the units of access (i.e., “tokens”) solely on the server and, therefore, the requestor does not have a token to transmit. Br. 8. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because the Examiner relies upon O’Mahoney, not Lundberg, to teach the limitation reciting “the token is transmitted by the active entity in conjunction with a request for the service.” Final Act. 6 (citing O’Mahoney, Abstract, p. 3, lines 20–30). Appellants contend neither Lundberg nor O’Mahoney individually teaches or suggests “the token is transmitted by the active entity in conjunction with a request for the service; and storing the collected context information of the active entity into a profile associated with the token,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18. Br. 10. Specifically, Appellants argue Lundberg’s “units of access” are not transmitted between the client and the resource while O’Mahoney’s access tokens do not store the claimed “context information,” but only store “hash values” and “hash chain identifiers.” Br. 10. Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive because Appellants do not address the Examiner’s specific findings. Particularly, as discussed above, the Examiner relies upon O’Mahoney, not Lundberg, to teach transmitting a token. Ans. 5 (citing O’Mahoney Abstract, p. 3, lines 20–30). The Examiner also relies upon Lundberg, not O’Mahoney, to teach “storing the Appeal 2013-009674 Application 12/175,738 5 collected context information of the active entity stored a profile associated with the token.” Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 5–6. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s combination of Lundberg and O’Mahoney is improper. Br. 10. Appellants assert that it is not reasonable to expect O’Mahoney’s tokens would be combined with Lundberg’s “units of access” because “there is nothing in Lundberg to suggest that the units of access are maintained on any device other than the server controlling the respective resource.” Br. 10. Appellant’s contention is not persuasive because the Examiner finds motivation to combine in O’Mahoney, not Lundberg, for teaching “the token is transmitted by the active entity in conjunction with a request for service,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18. Ans. 5 (citing O’Mahoney, Abstract, p. 3, lines 20–30). Specifically, the Examiner finds O’Mahoney teaches allowing a user to buy network credit and submit a token representing the amount of network credit purchased. Ans. 5 (citing O’Mahoney, p. 1, lines 6–10). The Examiner finds O’Mahoney sets forth advantages such as simplified administration and greater transparency for the user. Ans. 5 (citing O’Mahoney, p. 6, lines 25–27). Based upon the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 17, and 18. We likewise sustain the rejection of claims 2–12, 14, 15, 19, and 20, for which no additional persuasive arguments have been presented. Br. 10. We additionally sustain the rejection of claim 16, for which no additional persuasive arguments have been presented. Br. 11. Appeal 2013-009674 Application 12/175,738 6 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–12 and 14–20. 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 ELD