Ex Parte Celi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2016

13344156 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/344, 156 01/05/2012
49330 7590
DUKEW. YEE
Yee & Associates, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
04/25/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joseph Celi JR.
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.
A US920110389US1 2876
EXAMINER
SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH CELI JR., OLGIERD S. PIECZUL,
and MARY ELLEN ZURKO
Appeal2014-005520
Application 13/344,156
Technology Center 2600
Before LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending
in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005520
Application 13/344,156
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to improving identification of a mobile
device used to request access to a secure data processing system. Spec. ,-r 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis and bracketed material added):
1. A method for identifying a mobile device to
a particular data processing system that has a mobile
device management (MDM) server, said method
comprising the steps of:
initially registering information with the
particular data processing system that pertains to a
user of the mobile device, wherein the registered
information includes specified credential
information and further includes a unique message
address associated with said user;
[L 1] receiving an enrollment request message
at the MDM server, wherein the enrollment request
message includes said specified credential
information;
responsive to rece1vmg the enrollment
request message, operating the MDM server to send
a message of specified type to the unique message
address associated with said user, wherein said
message of specified type includes a personal
identification number (pin) code;
subsequent to sending the message of
specified type, receiving a second message at the
MDM server that includes the pin code; and
responsive to receiving the pin code,
operating the MDM server to deliver a security
token for use in authenticating the mobile device to
selectively access the particular data processing
system.
2
Appeal2014-005520
Application 13/344,156
The Rejections
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Pitkanen (WO 2011/055002 Al; May 12, 2011).
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pitkanen and
Official Notice.
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 6 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pitkanen. Ans. 3.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, Pitkanen teaches or suggests the
claimed server via descriptions of "a network data interface, the ability to
accept incoming notifications, load and execute related software and [ ... ] a
local repository database, which are terms that describe a server." Final Act.
3--4. The Examiner further finds Pitkanen teaches or suggests the claimed
specified credential information through descriptions that the documents of
Pitkanen include "authentication information." Id. at 4. Finally, the
Examiner finds Pitkanen teaches or suggests limitation L 1 by describing
sending a secure link to mobile device, where "[t]he sending of the supplied
password and login to enter the page is equivalent to a message requesting
enrollment into the server." Id. (citing Pitkanen, 18:25-32). Appellants
contend, inter alia, the Examiner errs because the cited teachings and
suggestions fail to meet limitation LI. App Br. 8.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner fails in the record before us
to identify sufficient teaching or suggestion in Pitkanen that the email
including a secure link sent at step 206 of Figure 2 is received at the MDM
server with the specified credential (i.e. the supplied password and login).
3
Appeal2014-005520
Application 13/344,156
Pitkanen, Fig. 2 and 18:25-32. Rather, at best, the cited portions of Pitkanen
teach or suggest the user-not the system-receiving the email at an email
server, not at the claimed MDM server. See, e.g., Pitkanen 18:25-32 and
Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1. The Examiner relied upon findings similar
to those described above for limitations in independent claims 14 and 19
commensurate with limitation L 1 of claim 1. For the reasons stated above,
we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 14 and 19. Having reversed each independent claim, we
reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 2-
5, 7-13, 15, 16, 18 and 20 for the same reasons described above.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-5, 7-16, and
18-20 as obvious.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is moot given the Examiner's decision withdrawing the rejection.
REVERSED
4