Ex Parte Vimpari

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12880797 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/880,797 09/13/2010
10949 7590 05/03/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Markku Kalevi Vimpari
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.
042933/454411 9820
EXAMINER
PAN, PEILIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKKU KALEVI VIMP ARI 1
Appeal2014-006296
Application 12/880,797
Technology Center 2400
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and MONICA
S. ULLAGADI
, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the pending claims. Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed April 18, 2013 ("Final
Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief filed November 18, 2013 ("App. Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed January 31, 2014 ("Ans."); Appellant's Reply
Brief filed March 31, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and the Specification filed
September 13, 2010 ("Spec.").
Appeal2014-006296
Application 12/880,797
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 3
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Issa (US 8,024,784 Bl, issued Sep. 20, 2011)
("Issa") and Schultz et al. (US 2012/0054841 Al, published Mar. 1, 2012)
("Schultz"). Final Act. 3.
Claims 4--6 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Issa, Schultz, and McCullough (US 2011/0188656
Al, published Aug. 4, 2011) ("McCullough"). Final Act. 6.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Independent claims 1 and 1 7 are directed to methods and independent
claim 9 is directed to an apparatus. App. Br. 14--16, 18. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving a request to generate a recipient identifier for
indicating data exchanged between a service and an application
on a device;
determining a user identifier, one or more device
identifiers associated with the device, one or more application
identifiers associated with the application, or a combination
thereof; and
determining to generate the recipient identifier by
encoding, at least in part, the user identifier, the one or more
device identifiers, the one or more application identifiers, or a
combination thereof in the recipient identifier,
wherein the user identifier, the one or more device
identifiers, the one or more application identifiers, or a
3 The rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, set
forth in the Final Office Action on page 2 was withdrawn by the Examiner.
Ans. 3.
2
Appeal2014-006296
Application 12/880,797
combination thereof are decodable directly from the rec1p1ent
identifier.
App. Br. 14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 120 in light of Appellant's
arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. We are not
persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. We provide the
following explanation for emphasis.
Claims 1, 9, and 1 7
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 9, and 17 as a group. App.
Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 2--4. Claim 1 recites, "determining a user identifier, one
or more device identifiers associated with the device, one or more
application identifiers associated with the application or a combination
thereof." App. Br. 14. Claims 9 and 17 contain analogous limitations. App.
Br. 15-16, 18.
Appellant argues, "Issa makes no mentioning [sic] of a determination
of a user identifier, one or more device identifiers associated with the device,
one or more application identifiers associated with the application or a
combination thereof." App. Br. 7-9. In response, the Examiner's Answer
states:
Issa discloses "Thus, the token [i.e., the recipient
identifier] 13 0 includes a token identification 131, the peer
name [i.e., the device identifier] 133 of the peer 160, an
encrypted usemame [i.e., the user identifier] 134 and encrypted
password 135." see fig. 2; col. 3, lines 43--46, Issa). Because
the token includes the usemame, the peer name there must be a
3
Appeal2014-006296
Application 12/880,797
determination of the usemame and the peer name prior to the
token being built. Therefore, Issa discloses the determination
of a user identifier, one or more device identifiers associated
with the device, or a combination thereof.
Schultz further discloses "The token may include
credentials, such as a user device identifier, infonnation
associated with the user, and/or information associated with the
unknown device application (e.g., an application identifier, an
application signature, a vendor identifier, etc.)." see [0019],
Schultz). Therefore, Schultz discloses that the token includes
the application identifier. Because the token includes the
application identifier, there must be a determination of the
application identifier prior to the token being built.
Ans. 4--5. The Examiner relies on both Issa and Schultz to teach the
disputed limitation. Paragraph 19 of Schultz was cited as teaching the
application identifier on page 3 of the Final Office Action and in the above-
quoted passage from the Examiner's Answer. We agree with the Examiner
and Appellant fails to persuasively rebut the Examiner's specific findings
based on Schultz in either the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief App. Br. 7-1 O;
Reply Br. 2--4.
With regard to the other limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17, Appellant
argues:
Issa does not teach or even suggest a determination to
generate the token 130 (the alleged recipient identifier) by
encoding, at least in part, a user identifier, one or more device
identifiers, one or more application identifiers, or a combination
thereof in the token 130, and wherein the user identifier, the one
or more device identifiers, the one or more application
identifiers, or a combination thereof are decodable directly
from the token 130. In like manner, Issa fails to disclose
receiving a request to generate a recipient identifier for
indicating data exchanged between a service and an
4
Appeal2014-006296
Application 12/880,797
application oi a device, as the system of Issa does not generate
a recipient identifier.
App. Br. 9. In response, the Examiner's Answer states:
Issa discloses "If the user has been authenticated, then
the remote authentication server 110 creates a unique token
[i.e., the recipient identifier] 130 and store the token 130 in the
token repository 120, via step 216. Note that the remaining
steps, 218-224 are also performed only if the user has been
authenticated [i.e., the determining]." (see col. 6, lines 24-29,
Issa); and "generating a token upon authentication of the peer
owner," (see col. 7, line 14, Issa). Therefore, because Issa
discloses that the token is created only if the user has been
authenticated, Issa discloses a determination to generate the
token (corresponding to the claimed recipient identifier).
Issa further discloses, "Thus, the token [i.e., the recipient
identifier] 130 includes a token identification 131, the peer
name [i.e., device identifier] 133 of the peer 160, an encrypted
usemame [i.e., the user identifier] 134 and an encrypted
password 135." (see fig. 2; col. 3, lines 43-46, Issa).
Therefore, Issa discloses encoding, at least in part, a user
identifier, one or more device identifiers, or a combination
thereof in the token, and wherein the user identifier, the one or
more device identifiers, or a combination thereof are decodable
directly from the token.
Schultz further discloses "The token may include
credentials, such as a user device identifier, information
associated with the user, and/or information associated with the
unknown device application (e.g., an application identifier, an
application signature, a vendor identifier, etc.)." (see [0019],
Schultz). Therefore, Schultz discloses that the token includes
the application identifier. Because the token includes the
application identifier, there must be a determination of the
application identifier prior to the token being built.
Ans. 5---6.
5
Appeal2014-006296
Application 12/880,797
The Examiner's detailed findings are well-supported by the cited
references, Issa and Schultz. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) provides: "[t]he
arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by appellant." In the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief,
Appellants repeatedly restate elements of the claim language and repeatedly
summarily state the elements are not disclosed by Issa. However, 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) also provides: "[a] statement which merely points out what
a claim recites will not be considered as argument for separate patentability
of the claim." See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to 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.") Appellant's argument fails to persuasively reubt the
findings of the Examiner and does not provide an explanation as to how the
Examiner erred that is sufficiently supported by evidence of record. App.
Br. 9--10. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument and sustain
the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 1 7.
Claim 7
Claim 7 is the only dependent claim separately argued. App. Br. 11-
12. Appellant argues the cited references fail to teach or suggest,
"determining to generate a message authentication code for the recipient
identifier; and determining to include the message authentication code in the
recipient identifier, as recited in claim 7. Id. In response, the Examiner's
Answer states:
Schultz discloses "Based on the determination that the
unknown device application is a trusted device application, the
6
Appeal2014-006296
Application 12/880,797
~ • TT 1. '. LL • ' ."1 1 1 • 1 • '.
KA v appucauon~ may register me unKnown aev1ce appucauon
and may use a data integrity algorithm, such as a cryptographic
algorithm, a hashing algorithm, a checksum, or some other
mathematical algorithm to generate an integrity code [i.e.,
wherein the integrity code is the message authentication code].
The integrity code may be based on the login credentials
received in the token [i.e., the recipient identifier] (e.g., the user
device identifier, the application identifier, the information
associated with the user, etc.) and/or obtained from the user
and/or the user device." (see [0021 ], Schultz). Therefore,
Schultz discloses determining to generate an integrity code
(corresponding to the message authentication code) for the
token (corresponding to the recipient identifier).
Issa discloses "Thus, the token [i.e., the recipient
identifier] 130 includes a token identification 131, the peer
name [i.e., the device identifier] 133 of the peer 160, an
encrypted usemame [i.e., the user identifier] 134 and an
encrypted password 135." (see fig. 2, col. 3 .. , lines 46-48, Issa).
Therefore, Issa discloses the token (the recipient identifier) and
the various identifiers that are included within the recipient
identifier.
Ans. 7 (footnote added). These findings by the Examiner are well-supported
by the cited art and we agree with the Examiner's findings. And, here again,
Appellant neither addresses the findings of the Examiner nor does Appellant
explain how the Examiner erred.
For all of the reasons indicated above, we sustain the rejection of
claim 7.
Claims 2---6, 8, 10-16, and 18-20
Appellant argues dependent claims 2---6, 8, 10-16, and 18-20 are
patentable for the same reasons as independent claims 1, 9, and 17. App. Br.
4 Registration, authorization, and verification application. Schultz i-f 11.
7
Appeal2014-006296
Application 12/880,797
11-12. We sustain the rejection of claims 2---6, 8, 10-16, and 18-20 for the
reasons stated above with regard to claims 1, 9, and 17.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8