Ex Parte EDMEADES et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 23, 2016

12983017 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/983,017 12/31/2010 46320 7590 03/25/2016 CRGOLAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jason C. EDMEADES 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. RSW920100113US1 (644) 9454 EXAMINER RAZA, MUHAMMAD A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2449 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2016 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): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JASON C. EDMEADES, PETER J. JOHNSON, DAVID LOCKE, CLARE J. OWENS, and FENGLIAN XU Appeal2014-004767 Application 12/983,017 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-004767 Application 12/983,017 STATEivIENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 8-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 8. A user ID management data processing system comprising: a computer with at least one processor and memory and fixed storage and configured for coupling to a plurality of computing resources in a computing system; an operating system executing in the computer; and a user ID predictor module coupled to the operating system and executing in the computer, the module comprising program code enabled to receive a request for a user ID from a user to access a portion of the computing system, to determine at least one characteristic of the user, to correlate the characteristic of the user to at least one user ID option that differs from the requested user ID, and to prompt the user to accept the user ID option. Schmidt Buchholz Prasad Prior Art US 2003/0120948 Al US 2003/0229812 Al US 7,010,600 Bl Examiner's Rejections June 26, 2003 Dec. 11, 2003 Mar. 7, 2006 Claims 8, 11-15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prasad and Buchholz. 1 1 The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1-7 of related Application Number 13/407 ,077 as unpatentable over claims 8-19 of this Application. The Examiner should consider rejecting claims 8-19 of this Application as unpatentable over claims 1-7 of related Application Number 13/407,077. 2 Appeal2014-004767 Application 12/983,017 Claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prasad, Buchholz, and Schmidt. ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Section 103 Rejections of Claims 8-19 Appellants contend the combination of Prasad and Buchholz does not teach a user ID predictor module "to correlate the characteristic of the user to at least one user ID option that differs from the requested user ID," as recited in claim 8. App. Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants argue paragraph 7 of Buchholz teaches the end user does apply for the second system, so the user ID of Buchholz is the requested user ID, not an "ID option that differs from the requested user ID." App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3-5. Appellants' contention is inconsistent with paragraphs 8 and 9 of Buchholz, which teach mapping and automatically granting access to the user. For example, paragraph 8 of Buchholz teaches mapping privileges of a user to roles in a second system, and automatically granting access to the user according to the mapping to provide the user with an ID that can access resources in the second system. Paragraph 9 of Buchholz teaches mapping roles of a user to privileges in a second system and automatically granting access to the user to privileges in the second system according to the mappmg. 3 Appeal2014-004767 Application 12/983,017 Paragraph 17 of Appellants' Specification discloses Of note, the user profile 13 0 can contain information such as the job role and location of the user. The ID prediction logic 120 can inspect the user profile information of the profile 130 in order to off er different user ID options to different users based upon their respective job roles. For example, an administrator requesting a normal ID for one system resource may be offered the option to request an administrator ID for the system resource while a non-administrator would not be offered this option. The scope of "a user ID predictor module ... to correlate the characteristic of the user to at least one user ID option that differs from the requested user ID," when read in light of paragraph 17, encompasses logic that correlates a role of a user with an additional system resource to provide the user with an ID that can allow the user to access the additional resource. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish mapping a role of the user to provide the user with an ID that can allow the user to access a second system as taught by Buchholz; from "a user ID predictor module ... to correlate the characteristic of the user to at least one user ID option that differs from the requested user ID," as recited in claim 8. Appellants further contend Buchholz does not teach or suggest "to prompt the user to accept the user ID option," as recited in claim 8. Specifically, Appellants argue "in Buchholz, no additional ID option is provided to the user." App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because the Examiner relies on Prasad, not Buchholz, to teach or suggest prompting the user to access the user ID option. Ans. 6. Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's finding that the combination of Prasad and Buchholz teaches the disputed limitation. 4 Appeal2014-004767 Application 12/983,017 We sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 8-19, which fall with claim 8. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 8-19 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 5