Ex Parte Graser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 17, 2015

12094858 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2015)

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. 12/094,858 05/23/2008 Thomas Graser DE920050044US2 6050 50170 7590 03/18/2015 IBM CORP. (WIP) c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C. 17304 PRESTON ROAD SUITE 200 DALLAS, TX 75252 EXAMINER HOLDER, BRADLEY W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2439 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2015 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 THOMAS GRASER, BERND JOSTMEYER, NORBERT LENZ, ANDREAS SCHAUBERER, and WOLFGANG SCHAEBERLE ____________ Appeal 2013-000374 Application 12/094,858 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–8, 11–14, 16–21, 23, and 24. Claims 9, 10, 15, and 22 have been canceled. (App. Br. 2.) 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 23, 2008, which claims benefit of PCT/EP2006/065398 (filed August 17, 2006) and EPO 05111261.3 (filed November 24, 2005); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed March 21, 2012; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed September 27, 2012. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 31, 2012, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final Act.”) mailed November 15, 2011. Appeal 2013-000374 Application 12/094,858 2 Appellants’ Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns computer program products, systems, and methods for accessing systems in a network (systems (sub-systems) of a distributed computer system) by storing system (sub- system) identifying information, determining if the sub-systems are accessible by the same password (equal passwords) or require different passwords from the identifying information, and determining if a password utilized to access a first system may be used to access a second system. (Spec. 1:7–10; 3:22–8:30; Abstract.) Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method to securely access a plurality of systems of a distributed computer system by entering passwords, the method comprising: storing information identifying a first set of systems within the plurality of systems that are accessible by equal passwords and a second set of systems within the plurality of systems that are accessible by different passwords; prompting a user to enter a first password responsive to the user requesting to open a first session by accessing a first system within the first set of systems of the distributed computer system; caching the first password to be re-used when accessing other systems accessible by the first password; responsive to the user requesting to access a second system within the first set of systems, using the stored information to determine whether the second system to be accessed within the current session is accessible by the first password; Appeal 2013-000374 Application 12/094,858 3 responsive to the result of the determination being true, re-using the cached password to access the second system; and responsive to the result of the determination being false, prompting the user to enter a second password to access the second system and caching the second password required to access the second system to be re-used when accessing other systems accessible by the second password. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shigeeda (US 2003/0154413 A1, published Aug. 14, 2003) and Jamieson ’536 (US 7,392,536 B2, issued June 24, 2008 (filed June 18, 2003)). 2. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 7, 8, 12–14, 16–21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shigeeda, Jamieson ’536, and Jamieson ’732 (US 7,251,732 B2, issued July 31, 2007 (filed June 18, 2003)). ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’ contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue before us follows: Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Shigeeda and Jamieson ’536 collectively would have taught or suggested “responsive to the user requesting to access a second system within the first set of systems, using the stored information to determine whether the second system to be accessed within the current session is accessible by the first password” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 6 and 11? Appeal 2013-000374 Application 12/094,858 4 ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shigeeda and Jamieson ’536. (Final Act. 2–9; Ans. 5–7, 15–19.) Appellants contend, inter alia, that the “disparate portions of Shigeeda” cited by the Examiner “make no mention of storing information identifying systems that are accessible by equal passwords and identifying systems that are accessible by different passwords” (App. Br. 7). (See App. Br. 6–13; Reply Br. 2–4.) We agree with Appellants that Shigeeda and Jamieson ’536 do not teach or suggest the storing limitation of claim 1. Even though Shigeeda and Jamieson ’536 describe storing passwords/IDs and correlating IDs among multiple domains (systems), we disagree with the Examiner that the references teach identifying systems having the same password (equal passwords) and systems having different passwords. Shigeeda describes caching (storing) authentication identification (ID) and reusing the cached ID to access the same cabinet. (Shigeeda ¶¶ 9, 100, 102, 117; Ans. 5, 15– 16.) Shigeeda also describes multiple cabinets/systems with different IDs. (Shigeeda ¶¶ 146–150, 226.) Jamieson ’536 similarly describes multiple domains and authentication/user IDs. (Jamieson ’536, col. 1, l. 27–col. 2, l. 23, col. 7, l. 30 –col. 8, l. 17; Ans. 6–7, 17–19.) Jamieson ’536 further describes correlating different IDs. (Jamieson ’536, col. 7, l. 30 –col. 8, l. 17; Ans. 17–19.) The combination of Shigeeda and Jamieson ’536 does not teach or suggest storing information identifying systems having the same password (equal passwords) and systems having different passwords, much less Appeal 2013-000374 Application 12/094,858 5 determining that a system falls within the first set (having equal passwords) or second set (different passwords). Claim 1 requires that “responsive to the user requesting to access a second system within the first set of systems” — i.e., determining that a system is in the first set having equal passwords — “using the stored information to determine whether the second system to be accessed within the current session is accessible by the first password” (claim 1). The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the proffered combination meets this limitation of claim 1. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding Shigeeda and Jamieson ’536 teach the recited features of Appellants’ claim 1. Appellants’ independent claims 6 and 11 include limitations of commensurate scope. Appellants’ dependent claims 2–5, 7, 8, 12–14, 16–21, 23, and 24 depend from and stand with their respective base claims. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–8, 11–14, 16–21, 23, and 24. CONCLUSION Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1– 8, 11–14, 16–21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–8, 11–14, 16–21, 23, and 24. REVERSED msc