Ex Parte Wilson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 15, 2018

11856675 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/856,675 09/17/2007 Robert A. Wilson
145169 7590 10/17/2018
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (DXC)
379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
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.
36MK-255155 9489
EXAMINER
MARCUS, LELAND R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2018 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):
svpatents@sheppardmullin.com
SheppardMullin_Pair@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT A. WILSON, BERNARD E. MAMON,
DOUGLAS J. VOS, DWAYNE G. RIDENOUR, BEYERL YE. GRAU,
KATHLEEN J. HILL, STEVEN E. HODGINS,
ANTHONY S. ABRAHAM, SHELLEY A. MANNINO,
JESSICA ELSTON, DARREN KELLY, and JOHN SCAMEHORN
Appeal2017-004952
Application 11/856,675 1
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Robert A. Wilson et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The Appellants identify Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP as
the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-004952
Application 11/856,675
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method of managing assets for an
organization comprising:
generating, by a computer system, a web portal to provide real-
time access to asset data across one or more organizations, wherein
the asset data comprises information about assets for at least one of
the organizations, wherein at least one of said assets comprises a
computer, the web portal comprising:
links to service management consoles, wherein selection
of a link presents a service management console, and wherein each
service management console:
retrieves asset data for a category of service
management related to the service management console for a
specified time period;
analyzes the asset data; and
generates an interface to present the asset data to a
user;
a dashboard, wherein the dashboard comprises an
interface that includes an overview of asset data, and wherein the
dashboard comprises:
indicia indicative of the status of at least one of
incidents related to assets or corrective action related to incidents,
wherein the indicia indicative of the status includes at least one of
virus compliance indicia and virus vulnerabilities indicia; and
a report upload interface, wherein the report
upload interface allows a user to upload reports related to the asset
data;
2
Appeal2017-004952
Application 11/856,675
determining virtual servers assigned to web sites associated
with a web server hosting the web portal, wherein users access the
web portal through the web sites and different ones of the web sites
have different corresponding authentication services;
storing aliases representing assignments of the virtual servers to
the web sites;
differentiating the users accessing the web portal based on the
web sites through which the users are accessing the web portal; and
authenticating each of the users according to the authentication
service corresponding to the web site and the virtual server by which
the user is accessing the web portal.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Schweitzer et al. US 2004/0078257 Al Apr. 22, 2004
"The Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in
the art that websites are resources and that traffic analysis of websites
is old and well known in the art" (Final Act. 5) and "[t]he Examiner
takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art that
computers are resources [ ] and that computers have to be managed to
ensure they do not become infected by computer viruses" (Final
Act. 6). [Official Notice]
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as judicially-excepted
subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Schweitzer and Official Notice.
3
Appeal2017-004952
Application 11/856,675
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as judicially-excepted subject matter?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schweitzer and Official Notice?
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §1 OJ as being directed to
judicially-excepted subject matter.
Alice Corp. Proprietary Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct.
2347 (2014) identifies a two-step framework for determining whether
claimed subject matter is judicially-excepted from patent-eligibility under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
According to Alice step one, "[w]e must first determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept," such as an
abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
In that regard, the Examiner determined that "the claims are directed
to the abstract idea of keeping track of an inventory of items, specifically
asset data collection, presentation, and management." Final Act. 2.
Step two is "a search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ( quoting Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 US 66, 73 (2012)).
In that regard, the Examiner determined that:
4
Appeal2017-004952
Application 11/856,675
[t]he claims do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because they recite the use of a generic computer performing generic
computing tasks, specifically:
"generating, by a computer system, a web portal."
"a report upload interface"
"determining virtual servers assigned to web sites associated
with a web server hosting the web portal, wherein users access the
web portal through the web sites and different ones of the web sites
have different corresponding authentication services"
Final Act. 3.
"a web server including at least one processor"
"a web portal hosted by the web server"
Accordingly, the Examiner concluded that the claimed subject matter
is judicially-excepted from patent-eligible subject matter.
The Appellants challenge the rejection for three reasons- central to
them all are the claim limitations:
determining virtual servers assigned to web sites associated
with a web server hosting the web portal, wherein users access the
web portal through the web sites and different ones of the web sites
have different corresponding authentication services;
storing aliases representing assignments of the virtual servers to
the web sites;
differentiating the users accessing the web portal based on the
web sites through which the users are accessing the web portal; and
authenticating each of the users according to the authentication
service corresponding to the web site and the virtual server by which
the user is accessing the web portal.
Claim 1 ( claim 17, the other independent claim, contains similar limitations).
5
Appeal2017-004952
Application 11/856,675
The reasons are that the claims (a) are not directed to an abstract idea
but to a technical solution to a technical problem (App. Br. 9, responding to
the Alice step one determination); (b) are not directed to a generic computer
or generic computer tasks (App. Br. 11, responding to the Alice step two
determination); and ( c ), are akin to the computer technology-rooted
invention at issue on DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); that is, the claimed subject matter provides a
"technical solution associated with the above-recited claim features [that] is
necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, such as Internet
access to a web portal and authentication of users accessing the web portal."
App. Br. 12.
The Specification discloses "[ s ]ystems, processes, and apparatus for
collect[ing], present[ing], and/or manag[ing] asset data" (para. 5; see also
para. 8 ("The current disclosure relates to asset data collection, presentation,
and management.")). The thrust of the Specification generally supports the
Examiner's articulation of what the claims are directed to.
However, the aforementioned limitations limit the claimed subject
matter to something more specific than just "keeping track of an inventory
of items, specifically asset data collection, presentation, and management"
(Final Act. 2).
The Appellants point to "paragraphs 33-34 on pages 16-17 of the
present Application" (App. Br. 9):
[0033] When users of the service provider or the client wants to
access Web portal 110, they may log into Web server 112. In
system 100, Web server 112 uses a federated authenticated model to
6
Appeal2017-004952
Application 11/856,675
manage users from more than one organization. In this
implementation, the service provider's users access Web server 112
through a virtual server 130 that belongs to the service provider, and
the client's users access Web server 112 through a virtual server 140
that belongs to the client. The virtual servers are overlaid and aliased
to two different Web sites. Web server 112 can then differentiate the
users and authenticate them against their respective authentication
services, service provider authentication service 150 and client
authentication service 160. Thus, each authentication services [sic]
may use whatever security protocols and data it desires. The service
provider's users and the client's users may also be treated as
associated with their respective organizations while using Web
portal 110. A user may customize the information presented by Web
portal 110, at start up or in reports. Reports may be in any appropriate
format (e.g., XLF or PDF).
[0034] Web portal 110 may also implement access control techniques
for the asset data. Thus, asset data may be associated with the service
provide and/or the client. Furthermore, a particular user may be
restricted from seeing certain types of data, possibly depending on the
user's role in the organization.
These passages describe implementation of a "federated authenticated
model" that appears to align with the claim limitations at issue. Albeit the
individual devices and services (web server, virtual server, authentication
services) may be generic, the overlaying and aliasing of two virtual servers
to two different websites - one belonging to a service provider though which
a service provider's users can access a web server and another belonging to a
client through which the client's users can access a web server through a
second virtual server that belongs to the client - has an effect, that is; the
web server "can then differentiate the users and authenticate them against
their respective authentication services, service provider authentication
service [] and client authentication service [ ]." Para. 33. As a
consequence, "each authentication services [sic] may use whatever security
7
Appeal2017-004952
Application 11/856,675
protocols and data it desires." Para. 33. Accordingly, in light of the
described "federated authenticated model," the claim limitations would
appear to "address a technical problem of how to apply different and
corresponding authenticated services for different users accessing the same
web portal" (App. Br. 9).
"The § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims
themselves." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149
(Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire
Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("[T]he important
inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim."). In that regard, it is
"relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement in
computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea, even at the
first step of the Alice analysis." Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Given the discussion in the Specification
regarding the improvement to systems with different authenticated services
resulting from applying a "federated authenticated model" to which the
claim limitations at issue are directed, the claims, as a whole, cannot be said
to be directed to an abstract idea but to an improvement in computer
functionality as the Appellants have argued.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner's determination under Alice
step one is not sustainable. Consequently, we do not reach the merits of the
Examiner's determination under Alice step two.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schweitzer and Official Notice.
8
Appeal2017-004952
Application 11/856,675
The claim limitations discussed above with respect to the § 101
rejection are also at issue in this rejection.
With regard to said limitations, the Examiner took Official Notice that
"it is old and well known in the art that websites are resources and that
traffic analysis of websites is old and well known in the art." Final Act. 5.
However, said limitations go far beyond merely describing websites
as resources and traffic analysis of websites. We agree with the Appellants
when they argue:
The facts officially noticed do not include "determining virtual servers
assigned to web sites associated with a web server hosting the web
portal ... ; storing aliases representing assignments of the virtual
servers to the web sites; differentiating the users accessing the web
portal based on the web sites through which the users are accessing
the web portal; and authenticating each of the users according to the
authentication service corresponding to the web site and the virtual
server by which the user is accessing the web portal" as recited in
claim 1 and as is similarly recited in claim 17. The Examiner is not
taking official notice to these claim features, and nor are these features
capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well
known such that official notice can be taken of these features. See
MPEP 2144.03. Merely because the Examiner is asserting traffic
analysis is well known, it does not necessarily require that the above-
recited claim features to be [sic] performed.
App. Br. 16-17.
We note that the Examiner cited US 6,341,310 B 1 (Lesham, issued
Jan. 22, 2002) as evidence that said limitations are in fact disclosed. Ans. 5.
Notwithstanding that reliance on Lesham for more than simply describing
websites as resources and traffic analysis of websites changes the
complexion of the rejection, we agree with the Appellants that there is no
disclosure in Lesham of "'differentiating the users accessing the web portal
9
Appeal2017-004952
Application 11/856,675
based on the web sites through which the users are accessing the web portal;
and authenticating each of the users' as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claim 17" (Reply Br. 11.)
The rejection is not sustained.
CONCLUSIONS
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 asjudicially-
excepted subject matter is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schweitzer and Official Notice is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
10