Ex Parte Ghosh

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 2014

11624471 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014)

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. 11/624,471 01/18/2007 SUBHAS KUMAR GHOSH H0008311 31772-0026 6700 128 7590 12/19/2014 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. PATENT SERVICES 101 COLUMBIA ROAD P O BOX 2245 MORRISTOWN, NJ 07962-2245 EXAMINER CHEDEKEL, TABITHA F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2876 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2014 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 SUBHAS KUMAR GHOSH ____________________ Appeal 2012-011336 Application 11/624,471 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-011336 Application 11/624,471 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1–4, 14–18, 23, 31, 35, and 36. Claims 32–34 have been allowed. Claims 5–13, 19–22, and 24–30 have been indicated to contain allowable subject matter, but are objected to as being dependent upon rejected claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed June 8, 2011, and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed February 1, 2012, and the Answer (“Ans.”) mailed December 1, 2011, for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A method of controlling access to a resource comprising: reading a first code from a user carried device, wherein the first code comprises an encoded form of at least an ID of a user and at least one privilege, and wherein the privilege embodies a policy defining the user’s access to the resource; comparing the first code to a second code; and, permitting access only if the first code substantially matches the second code. Appeal 2012-011336 Application 11/624,471 3 Rejections on Appeal1 The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 16, 17, 23, 31, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Carta (US 2003/0028814 A1, Feb. 6, 2003). Ans. 4–7. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carta and Lin (US 7,334,255 B2, Feb. 19, 2008). Ans. 7–9. The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carta and Ozer (US 4,839,640, June 3, 1989). Ans. 9–11. Appellant’s Contentions 1. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because “Carta does not disclose a user carried device that stores a first code comprising a user ID and a privilege that embodies a policy that defines a user's access.” App. Br. 11. In particular, Appellant further contends “Carta does not disclose a code that combines a user ID and a privilege. Carta does disclose various IDs and keys, but Carta uses them separately and does not combine any two or more of them into a code.” Id. at 16 (emphasis ours). 2. Appellant also contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because “no item of this data stored on the access card of Carta is a privilege that embodies a policy defining the user’s access to the resource. Indeed, if anything in Carta stores a privilege that embodies a policy defining the user’s access to the resource, it is the card reader.” App. Br. 14. In 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 3, 16, 17, 23, and 31. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2012-011336 Application 11/624,471 4 particular, Appellant further contends that in Carta the privilege is the ultimate decision that is “not be stored on an access card but is made at, and doesn’t exist until, the time that the user presents the card to the reader.” Id. at 16 (emphasis ours). 3. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 4, 14, and 18 because “there is nothing in Lin to suggest that the private shared secret comprises an encoded form of at least an ID of a user and at least one privilege.” App. Br. 17. 4. Appellant also contends the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 15 and 35 because “Ozer does not suggest generating a code in such a way that it is self-expiring. Instead, Ozer puts a date on the card that, when a reader reads it, the reader will not permit access.” App. Br. 18. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–3, 16, 17, 23, 31, and 36 as being anticipated by Carta, or in rejecting claims 4, 14, and 18 as obvious over Carta and Lin or claims 15 and 35 as obvious over Carta and Ozer because the cited references fail to disclose, teach or suggest the argued limitations? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 4–22). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appeal 2012-011336 Application 11/624,471 5 Claim 1 recites, inter alia, reading a first code from a user carried device, wherein the first code comprises an encoded form of at least an ID of a user and at least one privilege, and wherein the privilege embodies a policy defining the user's access to the resource As to Appellant’s contention 1, initially we note that Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim because the claim does not recite “combines” a user ID and a privilege. Nevertheless, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Carta discloses a code with an encoded form of at least an ID of a user and at least one privilege, as explained on pages 11–15 of the Answer. Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 essentially for the reasons indicated by the Examiner, as our interpretation of the disclosure of Carta coincides with that of the Examiner. As to Appellant’s contention 2, we disagree with Appellant’s arguments because Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim because the claim does not recite that data is “stored” on the access card. On pages 15 through 20, the Examiner provides a well- reasoned explanation, which demonstrates that Carta discloses the “wherein the first code comprises an encoded form of at least an ID of a user and at least one privilege, and wherein the privilege embodies a policy defining the user's access to the resource” limitation (Id.). We concur with the Examiner’s fact finding as it is supported by Carta’s disclosure. As to Appellant’s contentions 3 and 4, and upon consideration of the evidence on this record, we find the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusions that Appellant’s claims 4, 14, and 18 are obvious over the combination of Carta and Lin, and claims 15 and 35 are obvious Appeal 2012-011336 Application 11/624,471 6 over the combination of Carta and Ozer. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning (Ans. 20–22), which are incorporated herein by reference. Consequently, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 14–18, 23, 31, 35, and 36. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–3, 16, 17, 23, 31, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Carta. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4, 14, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carta and Lin. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 15 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carta and Ozer. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 14–18, 23, 31, 35, and 36 are affirmed. 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 msc