Ex Parte Fox et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 22, 2016

11559594 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111559,594 11/14/2006 106095 7590 04/26/2016 Baker Botts LLP 2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gregory A. Fox 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. 063170.8403 4358 EXAMINER EDWARDS, LINGLAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/26/2016 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): PTOmaill@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte J. GREGORY A. FOX and TIMOTHY T. TYE Appeal2014-002194 Application 11/559,594 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. We have considered Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions, and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established the combination of Kunzelman (US 6,041,357; March 21, 2000), Moulckers (US 2006/0259499 Al; Nov. 16, 2006) and Dias (US 2003/0002526 Al; Jan. 2, 2003) teaches or suggests initiate, in Appeal2014-002194 Application 11/559,594 response to receiving from the first web application via the second session the at least a portion of the session state information for the first session, generation of a first message key for the session state information ("initiate generation of message key" limitation), as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 12 and 23. The Examiner finds Kunzelman teaches receiving from the first web application (Application on server A) via the second session (Application on server B) at least a portion of the session state information for the first session (session token). Final Act. 5-6 (citing Kunzelman Fig. 2, elements S4, S5). In addition to the session information included in the session token, the Examiner also finds Kunzelman's out-of-band data is session information. Ans. 6 (citing Kunzelman Fig. 2; 5:40-56). The Examiner further finds Kunzelman' s session token with encoded version identifier teaches the message key. Final Act. 6 (citing Kunzelman 5: 50-5 5; 6: 14-- 33); Ans. 4--5. The Examiner relies on Dias to teach an identifier (message key) may be generated by either side of the communication. Ans. 6 (citing Dias ,-r 34). We have reviewed the cited sections of the references and agree with Appellants' arguments (Br. 20-23) that the Examiner has not established the references teach or suggest generation of the message identifier (session token with version identifier) is initiated in response to receiving the session state information (session token or out-of-band data). The cited sections of Kunzelman describe server B receives the session token 104 from server A. Kunzelman 5:38--42. The session token 104 contains session information (e.g., Unique Session identifier, Time of session creation) and also may reference out-of-band data that may be needed by Server B. Kunzelman 2 Appeal2014-002194 Application 11/559,594 2:40-49; 3:43--47). Kunzelman further describes a version identifier can be encoded in the session token, so that if out-of-band session information changes, the source server node (server A) can change the version identifier whenever a new session token is generated by the source node. Kunzelman 6:22--41. The cited sections of Kunzelman do not describe either the initial token or a token with a later version number (equated by the Examiner to be the message identifier) is generated in response to receiving the token or out- of-band data (equated by the Examiner to be the session state information). The Examiner does not use Dias or Moulckers to teach generation of a message identifier is initiated in response to receipt of session information. Moreover, the Examiner's findings for Dias do not sufficiently establish or explain how Kunzelman's server B could generate the session token 104 because server B appears to lack the session information contained within the token 104. See Ans. 6 (discussing Dias); Kunzelman col. 4:28-5:58 (describing the composition and purpose of the session token 104). For the reasons stated above, Appellants persuade us the Examiner has not established the combination of Kunzelman, Moulckers, and Dias teaches or suggests the "initiate generation of a message key" limitation. The Examiner does not make any findings that the additional reference of record (Aoki (US 2004/0260949 Al; Dec. 23, 2004)) teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of: (1) independent claims 1, 12, and 23; and (2) the remaining claims, which depend from one of the aforementioned independent claims. 3 Appeal2014-002194 Application 11/559,594 DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-33 are reversed. REVERSED 4