Ex Parte Crume

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2017

12426365 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017)

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.
12/426,365 04/20/2009 Jeffery L. Crume CHA920080032US1 4677
45095 7590 03/10/2017
HOFFMAN WARNTOK T T C EXAMINER
540 Broadway
4th Floor
PATEL, ASHOKKUMAR B
ALBANY, NY 12207 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2017 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):
PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFERY L. CRUME
Appeal 2014-003350
Application 12/426,365
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-003350
Application 12/426,365
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 20. Claims 2, 4—6, 9, 11—13, 16, 18, and 19 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to migrating a user across authentication
systems. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation
emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1 A system for migrating a user from an existing authentication
system to a new authentication system, comprising:
a login system that collects information from the user
during a login process;
a migration list check system that compares the
information to a migration list to determine if the user is selected
for migration, the migration list identifying a set of users selected
to be migrated, a status of the migration of each user in the set of
users, a user type for each user in the set of users, the user type
indicating which users are to be migrated, and a date for
migration of each selected user; and
a migration logic system that migrates the user from the
existing authentication system to the new authentication system
during the login process if the user is selected in the migration
list and a current date is after the migration date of the selected
user;
wherein the migration system migrates the user from the
existing authentication system to the new authentication system
a first time the user logs in after being selected and after the
migration date, wherein a password is captured during the login
process and automatically stored in the new authentication
2
Appeal 2014-003350
Application 12/426,365
system when the user is migrated, and wherein an expiration date
of the password on the existing authentication system is migrated
from the existing authentication system to the new authentication
system.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Peterson et al. US 2007/0083917 A1 Apr. 12, 2007
Vanyukhin et al. US 8,086,710 B2 Dec. 27, 2011
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Peterson and Vanyukhin.
Final Act. 3—15.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION
Appellant contends Peterson neither teaches a password expiration date
nor migration of authentication data including a password expiration date as
required by the independent claims. App. Br. 7—12, Reply Br. 2—\.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 8, 15,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peterson and
Vanyukhin. We agree with Appellant’s conclusions as to this rejection of the
claims.
3
Appeal 2014-003350
Application 12/426,365
Appellant argues “Peterson does not disclose that either [of the
disclosed default or changed] passwords has an ‘expiration date’ or that such
a non-existent ‘expiration date’ is migrated from the established server 150
to the target server 160.” App. Br. 10. The Examiner responds by finding
“[i]t would be obvious to one ordinarily [skill] in the art that the migrated
authentication data depicted within Peterson would include the expiration
dates of passwords as the expiration of a password is part of the
authentication process.” Ans. 16.
We agree with Appellant. “The Patent Office has the initial duty of
supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not. . . resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies” in the cited references. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967); see In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(same). The Examiner provides insufficient evidence for the finding that
Peterson would include a password expiration as part of the authentication
process. As argued by Appellant, the reference makes no mention of a
password expiration date much less migrating a password expiration date to
a new authentication system. Therefore we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 which include the disputed limitation
nor the rejection of dependent claims 3, 7, 10, 14, and 17 which stand with
their respective base claim.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
We enter a new ground of rejection pursuant to our authority under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). We reject independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 under
4
Appeal 2014-003350
Application 12/426,365
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peterson, Vanyukhin, and
Fowler et al., US 2003/0233541 A1 filed June 14, 2002 (“Fowler”).
The combination of Peterson and Vanyukhin teaches or suggests the
limitations of independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 for the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Final Rejection at pages 3—7 except for the disputed
limitation requiring migration of a password expiration date (see discussion
supra). In particular, Peterson and Vanyukhin teach migrating authentication
data from one authentication system to a new authentication system (Final
Act. 6 (citing Peterson || 32, 35 and Vanyukhin col. 7,11. 24—56); see also
App. Br. 121), the authentication data including a password (Peterson 130,
Vanyukhin col. 7,11. 24—56; see also App. Br. 102), but fail to explicitly
describe migration of a password expiration date. Fowler in an analogous
art describes a network of servers wherein “[ujsers may migrate their
account between servers without [losing] accumulated permissions.” Fowler,
Abstract. Fowler further discloses “all permission grants have an expiration
date and must be renewed to continue in effect, and a request for a copy of a
renewed permission may be made to the servers hosting either the user
account that issued the permission, or the user account that received the
permission” (Fowler, claim 10) thereby teaching or suggesting the migration
(e.g., between Vanyukhin’s servers) of authentication data to include an
expiration date. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Peterson and
1 “[0]ne skilled in the art would not interpret Vanyukhin’s migration of
authentication data as including such an expiration date” (emphasis added).
2 “[T]he default password and/or user entered password disclosed by
Peterson do not have an expiration date . . . . ”
5
Appeal 2014-003350
Application 12/426,365
Vanyukhin’s migration of authentication data including a password to further
include an expiration date of the password as taught by Fowler to provide
security against user authentication based on an expired password.
Accordingly, the combination of Peterson, Vanyukhin, and Fowler teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation of “wherein an expiration date of the
password on the existing authentication system is migrated from the existing
authentication system to the new authentication system,” as required by
independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 20.
We note the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is a review body, rather
than a place of initial examination. We have rejected independent claims 1,
8, 15, and 20 based on our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). We have
not, however, reviewed the remaining claims to the extent necessary to
determine whether those claims are likewise unpatentable. We leave it to
the Examiner to ascertain whether claims dependent from claims 1, 8, 15,
and 20 should be rejected on similar grounds to those set forth herein or in
combination with additional prior art.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1,3,7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and
20 is reversed.
We newly reject independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Peterson, Vanyukhin and Fowler.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection
6
Appeal 2014-003350
Application 12/426,365
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, Appellant, within
two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following
two options with respect to the new ground[s] of rejection to avoid
termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to
the examiner. The new ground[s] of rejection [are] binding
upon the Examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not
previously of Record is made which, in the opinion of the
examiner, overcomes the new ground[s] of rejection designated
in this decision. Should the examiner reject the claims,
Appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this
subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request
for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and
state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.
7
Appeal 2014-003350
Application 12/426,365
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
REVERSED
37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
8