Russell Speight. Vanblon et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2019

13745784 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2019)

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