Russell Speight. Vanblon et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 30, 201913745784 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 13/745,784 01/19/2013 Russell Speight VanBlon RPS920120056USNP(710.217) 4716 58127 7590 08/30/2019 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC 409 BROAD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15143 EXAMINER JACKSON, JENISE E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2439 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2019 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 RUSSELL SPEIGHT VANBLON, JEFFREY MARK ESTROFF, and JEFFERSON LOGAN HOLT Appeal 2018-000279 Application 13/745,784 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lenovo (Singapore) PTE., LTD. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2018-000279 Application 13/745,784 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a single sign-on between device application and browser. Appellant described the problem of authenticating to websites: even though the web site may use the same user credentials, the user is not recognized by the web site. This is so even though the user may have already authenticated to the client app and the web site uses the same credentials. The user in tum is required to input his or her credentials to authenticate to the web site, but this requires inputting the credentials a second time (e.g., user name/password input). While certain operating systems (e.g., WINDOWS 8 operating system) supports SSO between certain applications (e.g., “METRO applications” in the case of WINDOWS 8 operating system), there is no method to support SSO between an application and a web browser. . . . [E]mbodiments provide methods, products and devices that permit a single sign on (“SSO”) to be performed using a client app and a web site such that the user need only authenticate a single time (e.g., to the client side app). Embodiments therefore greatly reduce the cumbersome credentialing process that a user currently encounters when attempting to access products or services via a client app and associated web site. (Spec. ¶¶ 17–18). Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 10. An information handling device, comprising: an input device; one or more processors; and a memory operatively coupled to the one or more processors that stores instructions executable by the one or more processors to perform acts comprising: Appeal 2018-000279 Application 13/745,784 3 receiving user credentials at a client application via an input device of the information handling device; creating a token at the client application using the user credentials; receiving a request to access a secure web site associated with the client application via a user selection at the client application; launching a web browser at the information handling device; providing the token created at the client application to a remote device, wherein the remote device validates the token, authenticates the user based on the token, authenticates the request to access a secure web site, and passes the user credentials via the token to the web browser at the information handling device; and loading, at the information handling device, a secure web site in the web browser for presentation on a display device associated with the information handling device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Feirouz et al. US 2006/0294196 A1 Dec. 28, 2006 Dye et al. US 2009/0313318 A1 Dec. 17, 2009 Yefimov et al. US 2012/0324556 A1 Dec. 20, 2012 Grajek et al. US 2014/0082715 A1 Mar. 20, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1–5, 10–14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feirouz in view of Grajek. Appeal 2018-000279 Application 13/745,784 4 Claims 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feirouz in view of Grajek and further in view of Yefimov. Claims 8, 17, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feirouz and Grajek, and further in view of Dye. OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) With respect to independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 20, Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability. (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 16.) Appellant sets forth arguments to independent claim 1, but we select independent claim 10 as the representative claim for the group and will address Appellant’s arguments thereto.2 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv). The Examiner has the initial burden to set forth the basis for any rejection so as to put the patent Applicant on notice of the reasons why the 2 In attempting to determine the scope of the independent claims, we refer to Appellant’s Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter in the Appeal Brief. (See App. Br. 5–13.) We find that Appellant’s Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter merely cites to paragraphs 18, 29, 30, 32, and 35 and repeats portions of the claim language at the end of the Summary without any specific association to the disclosure. We find this Summary does not meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iii) which requires “[a] concise explanation of the subject matter defined in each of the rejected independent claims.” We note that the specific hardware elements of independent claim 10 are not described so as to identify what specific hardware unit is being claimed (client, remote device, or server) as the specific information handling “device” which is a single unit. Similarly, claim 19 does not specifically identify a “program product” to determine which specific location the product is embodied on the single “computer readable storage device.” If claims 10 and 19 are to refer to the “information handling Appeal 2018-000279 Application 13/745,784 5 Applicant is not entitled to a patent on the claim scope that he seeks — the so-called “prima facie case.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). An Appellant may attempt to overcome an Examiner’s rejection on appeal to the Board by submitting arguments and/or evidence to show that the Examiner made an error in either (1) an underlying finding of fact upon which the final conclusion was based, or (2) the reasoning used to reach the legal conclusion. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). The panel then reviews the rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445; see also Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075. With respect to representative independent claim 10, Appellant contends that the combination of prior art references does not teach or suggest the claimed step of providing the token created at the client application to a remote device, wherein the remote device validates the token, authenticates the user based on the token, authenticates the request to access a secure web site, and passes the user credentials via the token to the web browser at the information handling device device,” then this claim only refers to the client device and the step of providing the token created at the client device to a remote device is all that is required and the “wherein” limitation regarding the processing at the remote device does not further limit the client device. Therefore, argument thereto is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s findings regarding the claimed “information handling device.” We need not consider these argued deficiencies because we address independent claim 10 as the representative claim for the group, but the Examiner should reevaluate these claims in any further prosecution on the merits. Appeal 2018-000279 Application 13/745,784 6 (emphasis added). Appellant further contends that the claimed invention utilizes the remote device as an intermediary, whereas the Feirouz reference teaches a different approach. (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 17). Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s reliance upon the Grajek reference is flawed because Grajek in fact teaches the exact opposite of what it is cited for. (App. Br. 16.) Although we agree with Appellant that, in the Grajek reference, the authentication appliance creates the token which is used and the token is not created at the client application using the user credentials as required by independent claim 10, the Examiner relies upon the Feirouz reference to teach and suggest creating the token at the client. (Final Act. 5–6.) Therefore, Appellant’s arguments that the “token” in Grajek’s case is not “created . . . at the client application using the user credentials” are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness because these arguments are not commensurate in scope with the manner that the Examiner outlined the prior art teachings. (App. Br. 16.) We find that the Appellant attacks the prior art references individually even though the Examiner relied on the combination of Grajek and Feirouz as teaching or suggesting the disputed features (Final Act. 5–9; Ans. 2–5). In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”). With regards to the attacking the references individually, Appellant contends that the arguments are based upon the Examiner’s individual reliance upon the prior art references. (Reply Br. 19.) We disagree with Appeal 2018-000279 Application 13/745,784 7 Appellant, and Appellant is not addressing the references as specifically applied by the Examiner in the grounds of the rejection. Therefore, Appellant’s argument does not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of representative claim 10. Appellant presents the same arguments in the Reply Brief regarding the individual deficiencies in the combination of Grajek and Feirouz references, and Appellant provides two additional paragraphs of responsive arguments responding to the Examiner’s responses regarding the remote device as an “intermediary” between the client application and the web browser. (Reply Br. 17–18.) First, we note that the term “intermediary” is not found in the language of independent claim 10, and Appellant has not provided any citation in the Specification to support the proffered distinction. Second, Appellant’s general argument to the disclosed invention is not commensurate in scope with the express language of representative independent claim 10 and is unpersuasive. Appellant’s argument fails because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”); In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). Third, we disagree with Appellant and note that specific locations are not recited in the language of independent claim 10 and specific physical hardware elements are not specifically recited in the language of independent claim 10. Appeal 2018-000279 Application 13/745,784 8 As a result, Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 10. Because the Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 and dependent claims 2–9, 11–18, and 21, we group these claims as falling with representative independent claim 10. DECISION The Examiner’s obviousness rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–21 § 103 1–21 None No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation