Ex Parte Hou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2017

14161188 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 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.
14/161,188 01/22/2014 Justin Alexander Hou 340300.02 3692
69316 7590 12/20/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
THIAW, CATHERINE B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUSTIN ALEXANDER HOU,
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM THILGEN,
VLADIMIR HOLOSTOV, and ROY WILLIAMS
(Applicant: Microsoft Corporation)
Appeal 2017-003474
Application 14/ 161,18s1
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-003474
Application 14/161,188
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a secure remote
modification of device credentials. See Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method in a user device, comprising:
storing a plurality of credentials policies at the user device;
merging the credentials policies by the user device to
generate a merged credentials policy;
receiving an instruction from a trusted service that is
external to the user device, subsequent to storing and merging
the plurality of credential policies, to initiate a device credentials
change; and
generating, at the user device, a new device credentials to
allow a user of the user device to access the user device based at
least on the merged credentials policy.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Jancula
Mohanty
Chao
McLachlan
US 2009/0158406 A1
US 2013/0080765 A1
US 8,739,261 B2
US 2014/0189829 A1
June 18, 2009
Mar. 28, 2013
May 27, 2014
(filed Aug. 29, 2012)
July 3, 2014
(filed Dec. 1,2012)
“Expiring passwords at the user level,”
http://help.globalscape.com/help/eft6-
2/mergedprojects/eft/expiring_passwords_at_the_user_level.htm (last
modified Aug. 18, 2011) (hereinafter “Globalscape”)
2
Appeal 2017-003474
Application 14/161,188
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jancula in view of Globalscape.
Final Act. 4—10.
Claims 3,10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jancula in view of Globalscape and Mohanty. Final Act.
10-11.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jancula in view of Globalscape and Chao. Final Act. 11—
12.
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jancula in view of Globalscape and McLachlan. Final
Act. 12-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.2
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 1—20.
2 Rather than reiterate the entirety of the arguments of Appellant and the
positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 1, 2016);
the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 19, 2016); the Final Office Action (mailed Apr.
14, 2016); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Oct. 17, 2016) for the
respective details.
3
Appeal 2017-003474
Application 14/161,188
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 as a
group, focusing on the language recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 7—15.3 4We
decide the appeal of these claims on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Jancula and Globalscape teaches or suggest “receiving [at the user device]
an instruction from a trusted service ... to initiate a device credentials
change,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8—13; Reply Br. 3—6. More
specifically, Appellant argues “Jancula is directed to a password reset
system” that “composes password candidates for remote network entities
that satisfy an aggregate password specification determined at [the password
reset] system.” App. Br. 8—9. However, according to Appellant, “in
Jancula, a network entity does not receive an instruction to compose its own
password. Instead, the user at system 100 composes the password for the
network entity.” App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 3 (“In claim 1, a new
3 Appellant states that claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are
patentable “in view of their own features” without stating what those
features are and why those features are not taught in the prior art. App. Br.
15. That is insufficient to raise a separate argument that the Examiner erred.
See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37 requires
“more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”).
Accordingly, we will not review independently those claims—or any other
dependent claims—that Appellant does not present separate arguments. See
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“If an
appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more
broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter,
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.”).
4
Appeal 2017-003474
Application 14/161,188
device credentials is generated in a user device, which is very different from
Jancula or Globalscape, in which a user changes their password.”) (emphasis
omitted). Stated differently, Appellant argues:
[I]n Jancula, a remote changing of password is performed (user
composes password for remote network entity), while in claim
1, local generating of credentials is performed (user device
generating credentials used to access the user device itself).
In Jancula, a password for a network entity is composed at
system 100, there is no reason why the network entity should
receive an instruction to change the password, because the
password is not composed at the network entity.
App. Br. 10.
Appellant further argues Globalscape does not remedy the deficiency
in Jancula. App. Br. 11—13. Specifically, Appellant argues “Globalscape
provides a method for resetting a password via FTP and SFTP at an EFT
server.” Id. at 11. That is, according to Appellant, Globalscape teaches a
user, not a user’s device, receiving a password reset request: “In
Globalscape, a user receives the password expiration reminder while logged
in at the EFT server, not at their user device. In claim 1, a user device
receives an instruction to initiate a credentials change at the user device.
These are very different concepts from each other.” Id. at 12 (underlines
omitted); see also Reply Br. 3, 5 (“Prompting a user to change their
password, as in Globalscape, is not the same as receiving at the user device
an instruction from a trusted service to initiate a device credentials change,
as in claim 1. Again, in Globalscape, the user is presented with the prompt;
a device does not receive an instruction.”) (emphasis omitted).
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
5
Appeal 2017-003474
Application 14/161,188
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). There is a presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and
customary meaning. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). An applicant may rebut this presumption, however, by acting as
his own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the specification
with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” See In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition,
limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “[Although the
specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we
have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those
embodiments. . . . [CJlaims may embrace ‘different subject matter than is
illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification.’” Phillips v.
AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc) (citations
omitted).
Applying the broadest reasonable construction of the receiving step,
we do not agree with Appellant that the claim is limited to the user device—
as opposed to a user—receiving a request to change a password. Claim 1
simply recites “receiving an instruction from a trusted service that is external
to the user device, subsequent to storing and merging the plurality of
credential policies, to initiate a device credentials change.” However,
although claim 14 recites an instruction to change a password is received
from a trusted service that is external to a user device, the language of the
claim does not limit who or what receives the instruction or who or what
4 As discussed supra, we are only addressing the language in claim 1.
6
Appeal 2017-003474
Application 14/161,188
makes the change. Because Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate
with the scope of the claims, they are unpersuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in finding Jancula and
Globalscape teaches or suggest “generating, at the user device, a new device
credentials,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 6—7. Similar
to the arguments discussed above, Appellant focuses on whether the user or
the device generates the new credentials:
In Jancula, a new device credentials is not senerated in a user
device. as in claim 1, but instead is determined and provided by
a user. ... In Globalscape, a new password is not generated on
a browser, but instead a user is prompted for a password, and
the user provides the password.
Thus, neither of Jancula and Globalscape teaches or
suggests “generating” “in a user device, a new device
credentials to allow a user of the user device to access the user
device.” In both of Jancula and Globalscape, a user, external to
the device, provides a password. The user thinks up the
password, and types it in. No generating of a password in a
user device occurs in Jancula and/or Globalscape, as in claim 1.
Reply Br. 7; see also App. Br. 13—14.
Similar to the argument regarding the receiving step, because
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim,
we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred.
Specifically, although claim 1 recites that the new credential is generated “at
the user device,” it does not specify who/what does the generating.
Accordingly, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the scope of the claim is
broad enough to encompass the user generating the password, so long as it is
done at the user device. In other words, the broadest reasonable
7
Appeal 2017-003474
Application 14/161,188
interpretation encompasses the user typing a new password “at the user
device.”
Finally, in the Reply Brief, Appellant argues, for the first time, that
the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches that the new credentials
“allow a user of the user device to access the user device,” as recited in
claim 1. Reply Br. 7—9. Although Appellant states the argument is in
response to the Examiner’s Answer {id. at 7), the Examiner made
substantially the same finding in the Final Action {compare Final Act. 6,
with Ans. 8). Because Appellant did not raise that argument in his opening
brief and good cause has not been shown why it should be considered, we
will not consider this argument. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is
not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the
principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20, which
are not separately argued.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 18,
Appellant merely contends that because the additional references used in the
rejections of these claims (Mohanty, Chao, and McLachlan) do not cure the
shortcomings of the other references applied against claim 1, the Examiner
failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness for these claims. App. Br.
15—17. Because we determine that the rejection of claim 1 is not erroneous
for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of these claims.
8
Appeal 2017-003474
Application 14/161,188
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9