Ex Parte Joshi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 2017

12122422 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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. 12/122,422 05/16/2008 Rahul Joshi OR07-40801 8796 51067 7590 04/03/2017 PVF - ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP 2820 FIFTH STREET DAVIS, CA 95618-7759 EXAMINER SU, SARAH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2431 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2017 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): j eannie @parklegal. com syadmin@parklegal.com wendy@parklegal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAHUL JOSHI and WELLEN LAU Appeal 2014-001296 Application 12/122,422 Technology Center 2400 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, and TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-001296 Application 12/122,422 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellants2 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—17, 19, and 20.3 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and an apparatus for determining an identity of a third-party user in a Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) implementation of a web-service. Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for determining an identity of a user of a third- party service, the method comprising: receiving a web-service request at a web-service, from a first user of the third-party service; identifying a third-party server that provides the third party service, wherein the third-party server stores identifying attributes for users of the third- party service; receiving at the web-service one or more identifying attributes associated with the first user, wherein each of the identifying attributes comprises information about the first user; identifying the first user based on the identifying attributes and based on attribute types for the identifying attributes, 1 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed May 16, 2008 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed Jan. 4, 2013 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed June 4, 2013 (“Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer mailed Aug. 16, 2013 (“Ans.”). 2 Appellants identify Oracle International Corporation as the real party in interest (Br. 3). 3 Claims 4, 11, and 18 were cancelled previously. 2 Appeal 2014-001296 Application 12/122,422 wherein the one or more identifying attributes associated with the first user are of a different type than one or more identifying attributes associated with a second user of the third-party service; and performing a lookup in a user map to determine a user account that is associated with the first user. REFERENCES Yared et al. US 2003/0149781 A1 Cheng et al. US 2005/0015593 Al Cahill US 2007/0033148 Al Siegal et al. US 2007/0198435 Al Aug. 7, 2003 Jan. 20, 2005 Feb. 8, 2007 Aug. 23, 2007 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Cahill, Cheng, and Siegal. Final Act. 3—8. Claims 3, 7, 10, 14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Cahill, Cheng, Siegal, and Yared. Final Act. 9—10. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cahill, Cheng, and Siegal teaches or suggests: (a) identifying the first user based on the identifying attributes and based on attribute types for the identifying attributes; and (b) wherein the one or more identifying attributes associated with the first user are of a different type than one or more 3 Appeal 2014-001296 Application 12/122,422 identifying attributes associated with a second user of the third- party service, as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15? Did the Examiner err in finding it would have been obvious to combine Cahill, Cheng, and Siegal to reject claims 1, 8, and 15? ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 Appellants contend the combination of Cahill, Cheng, and Siegal does not teach “identifying [a] first user based on the identifying attributes and based on attribute types for the identifying attributes,” as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Br. 18—19. Appellants argue that Siegal’s system provides a session ID associated with a user, then gathers a biometric sample to authenticate that user. Id. Thus, Appellants contend, Siegal’s system does not identify a user based on attribute types for the user’s identifying attributes; rather, Siegal authenticates a user that has already been identified. Id.. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, of “identifying [a] first user” does not preclude Siegal’s identity management system that authenticates the identity of a user. Ans. 10 (citing Siegal H 21 and 28) (emphasis added). See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004): “[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.” Put another way, we do not see how “authenticating” a user is not “identifying” a user. Further, Appellants’ Specification provides non-limiting examples of “identifying attributes” and “attribute types” that include an email address, 4 Appeal 2014-001296 Application 12/122,422 phone number, and birth date. See Spec. 131. In light of this disclosure, we agree with the Examiner’s finding at Ans. 11—12 (citing Siegal H 24, 25, and 36) that Siegal teaches authenticating the identity of a user based on “attribute types” because Siegal teaches similar attribute types; biometric fingerprint data, name, email address, phone number, and date of birth. Appellants contend the combination of Cahill, Cheng, and Siegal does not teach “the one or more identifying attributes associated with the first user are of a different type than one or more identifying attributes associated with a second user of the third-party service,” as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. Br. 20. We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Siegal’s users submit various types of information, including biometric fingerprint information for multiple fingers and/or additional personal information such as name, email address, or phone number, to have their identity authenticated. Ans. 11—12 (citing Siegal 24, 25, and 36) (emphasis added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Siegal teaches authenticating a first user with one type of attributes, e.g., only using biometric fingerprint information from multiple fingers, and authenticating a second user with a different type of attributes, e.g., biometric fingerprint information and any combination of the additional personal data. Id. Appellants further contend that the Examiner’s combination of Cahill, Cheng, and Siegal is improper, as the combination modifies Siegal to use attribute types instead of a session ID to identify a user, and, thus, changes the principle of operation intended by Siegal. Br. 21—22. We are not persuaded of Examiner error, because Appellants’ contention mischaracterizes the combination. As discussed supra, we agree with the 5 Appeal 2014-001296 Application 12/122,422 Examiner’s finding that Siegal’s authentication of a user’s identity based on biometric and personal data teaches the claimed “identifying [a] first user based on the identifying attributes and based on attribute types for the identifying attributes.” Ans. 11—12 (citing Siegal 24, 25, and 36. Therefore, we also agree with the Examiner that no modification of Siegal’s principle of operation is necessary to teach the claimed subject matter. Ans. 14. Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Cahill, Cheng, and Siegal. Remaining Dependent Claims No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent claims. Thus, for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 5—7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Cahill, Cheng, and Siegal teaches or suggests: (a) identifying the first user based on the identifying attributes and based on attribute types for the identifying attributes; and (b) wherein the one or more identifying attributes associated with the first user are of a different type than one or more 6 Appeal 2014-001296 Application 12/122,422 identifying attributes associated with a second user of the third- party service, as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. The Examiner did not err in finding it would have been obvious to combine Cahill, Cheng, and Siegal to reject claims 1, 8, and 15. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Cahill, Cheng, and Siegal is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3, 7, 10, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Cahill, Cheng, Siegal, and Yared is 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7