Ex Parte 6,694,433 B1 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

96000014 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
96/000,014 07/16/2013 6,694,433 B1 STSPT21CIPSE 4772
49691 7590
IP Strategies
P.O. Box 6446
Asheville, NC 28816
12/21/2016 EXAMINER
RALIS, STEPHEN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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 APPEALS BOARD
Ex parte TECSEC, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
Appeal 2016-000249
Reexamination Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
Technology Center 3900
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
This reexamination examination proceeding arose from a
“STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.610(b)(5)” by Patent Owner
(“Request”) on July 16, 2013. A Supplemental Examination Certificate, US
6,694,433 FI, and “REASONS FOR SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION
OF PATENTABILITY DETERMINATION” both issued on October 4,
2013. On October 29, 2013, an ex parte reexamination was ordered
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 257. A Final Action was mailed June 4, 2014.
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
TecSec, Incorporated (hereinafter “Appellant”), the real party in
interest of Patent No. 6,694,433 (hereinafter “the ’433 patent”),1 appeals
from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—25 and 29—32 based on
various combinations of prior art. App. Br. 2, 4.2 Remaining claims 26—28
are found patentable. Final Act. 3, 126.
The ’433 patent, entitled XML Encryption Scheme, issued on Feb. 17,
2004 to James F. Kolouch.
Appellant indicates a related court proceeding involving the ’433
patent exists, entitled TecSec, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.
et al., Case No. l:10-cv-00115 (E.D. Va. 2010). App. Br. 3, 657 (App. C).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306.
We affirm.
Summary of the Invention
The ’433 patent is directed “to us[ing] encryption and encrypted
objects to record and authenticate inputs, processes, scheduled conditions,
and virtual environments of electronic accounting and operational systems,
and to provide a means to distribute these encrypted objects to designated
locations for access by designated individuals or entities.” The ’433 patent
2:58-64.
1 An Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, US 6,694,433 Cl, was issued for
the ’433 patent on December 20, 2012. Original claims 1—12 were
confirmed, and new claims 13—32 were determined to be patentable. The
’433 Cl patent 1:18-20.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed June 4, 2014, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed February 2, 2015,
(3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed March 25, 2015, (4) the Reply
Brief (Reply Br.) filed May 26, 2015, and (5) the Advisory Action (Adv.
Act.) dated October 1, 2014.
2
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
For example, the below Figure 6 shows the “use of XML to identify,
copy, and encrypt input objects.”
Figure 6 depicting a flow diagram using XML to identify, copy,
and encrypt objects
The ’433 patent 3:19—20, 5:50-6:3, Fig. 6.
3
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
The process shown in Figure 6 involves objects (e.g., 600, 601) in a
SAOCRS (secure accounting and operational control and reporting system)
that may or may not have related XML tags. The ’433 patent 5:51—54, Fig.
6. If required, appropriate tags are applied to objects 600 at step 602. Id. at
5:54—56, Fig. 6. SAOCRS 604 selects certain objects at step 603 using
XML tags to identify attributes and causes identical copies to be made at
step 605. Id. at 5:56—59, Fig. 6. Original tagged input objects 606 pass to
their intended process at step 607. Id. at 5:59—60, Fig. 6.
The XML tags of each copy of the selected input objects relate to
labels within the encrypted access hierarchy 609 at step 608 to determine the
appropriate labels (e.g., role-based labels that are descriptors of a type or
category of access) for use during encryption of each object at step 610. Id.
at 5:61—6:1, Fig. 6. Each encrypted object copy is stored at step 611 for the
appropriate people, devices, or systems. Id. at 5:67—6:3, Fig. 6.
Illustrative, independent claim 1 on appeal read as follows:
1. A method, comprising:
providing, consistent with a data format, at least one
object relating to a process;
selecting, from the at least one object, a first object
having an object tag associated therewith, wherein the first
object is an Extensible Markup Language element;
encrypting at least a portion of the first object according
to at least one cryptographic scheme determined at least in part
by the object tag; and
storing the encrypted at least a portion of the first object
for subsequent use by an intended recipient.
App. Br. 646, App. A.
4
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
A. Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Pond
Herz
Fletcher
Wave Research
US 4,864,616
US 5,754,939
US 7,010,681 B1
WO 99/38093
Sept. 5, 1989
May 19, 1998
Mar. 7, 2006
(filed Jan. 29, 1999)
July 29, 1999
U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/072,316 of Wave Research, filed
January 23, 1998 and incorporated by reference in Wave Research 1:3—4
(“WR Provisional”).
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) stating U.S. Patent 5,369,702 to
Shanton teaches encrypted objects may be embedded within other objects to
provide an access hierarchy for system users. The ’433 patent 4:47—50.
The “Rule 132 DECLARATION OF SAMUEL H. RUSS PURSUANT TO
37 C.F.R. 1.132” dated August 1, 2014 (“Russ Declaration” or “Russ Decl.”)
B. The Rejections3
The Examiner presents the following rejections on appeal:
References Basis Claims Ans.
Wave Research, WR
Provisional, and Pond
(Issue 34)
§103
1-6, 10-18,
20-25, and
29-32
22-95
Wave Research, WR
Provisional, Pond, and
AAPA (Issue 4)
§103 7—9 and 19 95-104
3 Issues 1 and 2 have been withdrawn. Ans. 2.
4 The Briefs and Answer refer to the rejections by issue number. We include
the issues numbers here and throughout the Opinion for clarity.
5
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
Herz, Pond, and
Fletcher (Issue 5) §103
1-6, 10-18,
20-25, and
29-32
104—165
Herz, Pond, Fletcher,
and AAPA (Issue 6) §103 7—9 and 19 165-172
II. ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on the arguments presented, Appellant presents the following,
main issues:
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Wave Research, WR
Provisional, and Pond or Herz, Pond, and Fletcher teach (a) a first object
having an object tag, the first object is an XML element and (b) encrypting
at least a portion of the first object according to at least one cryptographic
scheme determined at least in part by the object tag recited in independent
claim 1 or similarly recited in independent claims 2—6, 10, 17, 20, 29, and
31?
(2) Whether the Examiner articulates a reason with some rational
underpinning for combining Pond’s teachings with Wave Research and WR
Provisional to support a legal conclusion of obviousness for independent
claims 1—6, 10, 17, 20, 29, and 31?
(3) Whether the Examiner articulates a reason with some rational
underpinning for combining Pond’s and Fletcher’s teachings with Herz to
support a legal conclusion of obviousness for independent claims 1—6, 10,
17, 20, 29, and 31?
6
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
III. ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified in Appellant’s appeal brief, and in light of the arguments and
evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)). Except as noted, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the
Answer and the Final Action as our own.
A. Claim Construction
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and customary
meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (internal quotations omitted) (“The ordinary and customary meaning
‘is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the
art in question.’”). However, a patentee may rebut this presumption by
acting as her own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the
specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The ’433 patent recites thirteen independent claims. These claims
vary in scope in some fashion as discussed below in more detail. For
purposes of discussion, we begin by addressing independent claim 1.
7
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
B. Obviousness Rejection Based on Wave Research, WR Provisional,
and Pond (Issue 3)
Claims 1—6, 10—18, 20—25, and 29—32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 based on Wave Research, WR Provisional, and Pond. Ans. 2 n.2
(referring to the Appendix, which commences on page 22 of the Examiner’s
Answer), 22—95.
1. Independent Claim 1
For Issue 3, Appellant states “[cjlaim 1 is discussed above with
respect to Wave Research.” App. Br. 234. Namely, Appellant contends that
Wave Research does not teach at least a portion of the first object, which is
an XML (Extensible Markup Language) element, is encrypted according to
at least one cryptographic scheme determined in part by the object tag. Id.
Thus, although the rejection of Wave Research and WR Provisional (Issue
1) are withdrawn (Ans. 2), we address the arguments presented for Wave
Research under Issue 1 in the Appeal Brief. Moreover, we also address any
arguments presented within the subheading of “The Examiner’s Position”
(see, e.g., App. Br. 31—39) of the Appeal Brief. However, we have not
considered any argument that may have been presented in a response
referenced in the briefs (e.g., “Sept 2014 PO Response I, page 19,” cited in
App. Br. 33) but is not specifically articulated in the briefs. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.67(c)(l)(vii)(“[a]ny arguments or authorities not included in the brief
permitted under this section or under §§ 41.68 or 41.71 will be refused
consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown”); cf. 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.106(b)(3) and 42.6(a)(3).
8
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
A. “[T]hefirst object is an Extensible Markup Language element”
Claim 1 recites “the first object is an Extensible Markup Language
element.” The Examiner relies on Wave Research as evidenced by WR
Provisional to teach this limitation. Ans. 22 (citing Wave Research 20:3—
21:13; Fig. 2, WR Provisional 34—35s, and Request 4 (discussing Wave
Research describes using Hyperfile Modeling Language (HFML))).
Appellant argues that the descriptor files in Wave Research are stored
in an HFML tree structure, which is based on XML, but the underlying
digital assets are not XML elements. App. Br. 8, 40; see Reply Br. 16—17.
Appellant also argues that Wave Research does not teach “XML or
equivalent” but rather a HFML protocol. App. Br. 17,5 6 32—33; Reply Br.
14—16 (quoting from Carpentier7’8 and reproducing Figure 2, which is the
same as Figure 2 of Wave Research). Specifically, Appellant contends that
5 The Examiner appears to cite the thirty-fourth and thirty-five pages of the
provisional document, and not the pages numbered 34 and 35, which are the
two hundred twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh pages of the document.
6 Appellant discusses this portion of the Appeal Brief as addressing “WR
Provisional ’316” (App. Br. 12), but provides no citations and does not
discuss Wave Research separately in this section of the Appeal Brief.
Notably, the discussed portions appear to be in Wave Research itself— not
the provisional application—and thus we refer to Wave Research.
7 Appellant refers to Carpentier (US 6,807,632) (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4),
which forms no part of the rejection. For purposes of this Opinion, we
confine our discussion to Wave Research.
8 Appellant includes a statement that Carpentier states, when describing the
file 222 and what it includes that “[tjhese are not XML tags indicating XML
formatting; they are listing of folder contents. Column 11, lines 28-40.”
Reply Br. 16. No such statements are found in the cited portion of
Carpentier or Wave Research for that matter.
9
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
the text and drawings in Wave Research show a structure distinct from XML
syntax and formatting. App. Br. 33. We are not persuaded.
The Examiner maps the limitation of the “the first object is an [XML]
element” to Figure 2 of Wave Research and its accompanying description.
Wave Research 20:3—21:13, Fig. 2, cited in Ans. 22. Here, Wave Research
states that the descriptor file in Figure 2 uses HFML based on XML to
describe its structure. The ’433 patent 20:3—5, Fig. 2. We agree that this
supports that the descriptor file in Wave Research is in an XML format.
Arguably, a format based on another is not exactly the same format.
In fact, Appellant also contends that “HFML protocol is not shown to be
XML or equivalent.” App. Br. 17. Thus, to bolster that the descriptor file in
Wave Research is in an XML format, the Examiner cites to WR Provisional
that states HFML is “an XML application just like HTML.” WR Provisional
34—35, cited in Ans. 22. That is, Wave Research both refers to and
incorporates its provisional application by reference. Wave Research 1:3—4,
20:5—6. We agree that this evidence further supports that the descriptor file
is in an XML format.
Moreover, even presuming that the discussed HFML in Wave
Research is not exactly XML (Reply Br. 14—15), Wave Research at a
minimum suggests to an ordinary skilled artisan that an XML format can be
used given that HFML is based on XML as taught by Wave Research.
Wave Research 20:3 4. That is, Wave Research’s discussion that HFML is
based on XML (see Wave Research 20:4) is a preferred embodiment, but by
no means restricts the descriptor file to this syntax. Wave Research 20:4—7.
Wave Research further states that “[t]he invention provides for extension of
10
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
the languages or codes used to create descriptor files to describe virtually
any digital asset[.]” Wave Research 20:11—12. Thus, to the extent HFML is
not XML, Wave Research teaches and suggests using objects that are XML
elements.
Regarding WR Provisional, Appellant states that WR Provisional has
not been published and cannot be used as prior art. App. Br. 33—34. As the
Examiner responds and as noted above, WR Provisional has been
incorporated by reference into Wave Research. See id. (referring to Wave
Research 1:3—5 and citing Advanced Display Sys. Inc. v. Kent State
University, 212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Appellant provides no
persuasive rebuttal to the Examiner’s determination that the provisional
application is incorporated into Wave Research. See id. at 33—34, 40-41.
Thus, to extent argued, we agree with the Examiner that WR Provisional has
been incorporated properly into Wave Research and properly forms a basis
to support that the descriptor file uses XML and is an XML element.
Appellant also asserts that WR Provisional’s discussion of‘“XML
based description’” and “‘HFML parser running on XML Document Type
Definition parser’” are “not part of an enabling description of the disclosed
invention.” Reply Br. 14 (citing WR Provisional 11). This argument is
unavailing as the Examiner does not rely on this passage in WR Provisional
for support that Wave Research teaches an XML format. Additionally, this
argument is being presented for the first time on appeal in the Reply Brief
and is not in response to an argument presented by the Examiner’s Answer.
Compare id. with App. Br. 40-41. Such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
11
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
Nonetheless, to the extent this argument is not waived, Appellant also
argues that “the remainder of the [WR Provisional] document. . . does not
provide an enabling disclosure of this language [HFML] or its relation to
XML.” Reply Br. 14. Yet, Appellant provides no persuasive or specific
evidence for the assertion that WR Provisional is not enabling concerning
HFML and its relation to XML. Id. Because it is well-settled that counsel’s
arguments cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence,
we are not persuaded. See In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139—40 (Fed. Cir.
1996).
We further disagree that there is no discussion of the relation between
HFML and XML in WR Provisional for the above reasons. For example,
WR Provisional states HFML is “an XML application just like HTML” (WR
Provisional 34) and includes an illustrative example similar to Figure 2 in
Wave Research {Id. at 35). As another example, WR Provisional shows an
example HFML elements and a format where tags (e.g., “hyperfile”) are
used with the known “<” “/ >” nomenclature. WR Provisional 197—98.
Turning to the issue of whether Wave Research teaches “a first object
is an [XML] element,” we consult the disclosure of the ’433 patent.
Although the disclosure of the ’433 patent does not define the recited term
“object,” the Specification provides examples (1) of objects to include “data
objects” (the ’433 patent 5:21—22), “input objects in a SAOCRS” (the ’433
patent 5:51; Fig. 6), and “output objects in a SAOCRS” (the ’433 patent 6:5;
Fig. 7), and (2) that objects can be used in a virtual environment for various
purposes (e.g., management, taxing, regulation) (the ’433 patent 4:53—5:6;
12
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
Fig. 5). We therefore construe the term “object” in claim 1 broadly, but
reasonably to include data, information, or a data structure.
Acknowledging the descriptor file are stored in HFML based on
XML, Appellant contends that the discussed, original digital assets in Wave
Research are not XML elements or arranged in HFML format. App. Br. 8,
40-41; Reply Br. 16—17. Specifically, Appellant argues that the digital
assets themselves do not have a tag associated with them and are not XML
elements. Id. at 8, 40. Appellant states the identifier of the digital assets—
not the digital asset itself—are placed in the descriptor file, which is
arranged in the HFML directory structure with other descriptor files. Reply
Br. 16-17.
In the rejection, the Examiner maps the “providing ... at least one
object” step and the “selecting, from the at least one object, a first object
having an object tag” step to the generation of the descriptor file using a
HFML that is based on XML. Ans. 22—23 (emphasis omitted). The
Examiner explains that Wave Research teaches a “digital asset is placed into
an ‘empty XML element’ or solo element with an associated tag(s)” and
illustrates “the empty HFML/XML element tags of ‘file’ (i.e., ‘’).” Ans. at 7—8 (citing Russ Declaration || 84, 92 and Wave Research,
Fig. 2). The Examiner also states Wave Research discloses “the digital asset
(i.e.[,\ ‘file’) as being an XML element/object” and “the XML
element/object having an associated element/object tag.” Id. at 14. Thus,
the Examiner is not mapping the underlying, original digital assets used to
create descriptor file to the recited first object, but rather the data structure
13
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
that forms a “file” element with the descriptor file to the recited first object.
See id. at 7—8, 14.
The Examiner’s position is more fully understood when examining
the referred Figure 2 of Wave Research (Ans. 7—8) reproduced below:
Descriptor File
202 204 ,-206
^
£12 ... 214 .216
222

_??4 226 „228 ,-030
S' * f' ■
^
032 234 238 ,-238 ,-240
^

219
v'
208V <86 d folder?
'noa
Figure 2 showing a descriptor file’s structure
Wave Research 20:3, Fig. 2. As shown above, the descriptor file has
numerous elements or objects, including “file 222” and “file 232.” Id. at
20:17, 20; Fig. 2. Each of these files has empty tag that the Examiner refers
to as an “‘empty XMF element’” or “‘file.’” Ans. 7.
Dr. Russ states that “[tjags are marked out by the use of < and >” and
“[ejvery tag has to have a matching closing tag (indicated with a / mark).”
Russ Decl. 181. This is further supported by Appellant’s discussion citing
to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) which is described as setting the
XML standard. App. Br. 10 (citing http://www.w3.org/standards/xml/)
(stating “XML tags are identified by the use of < and > brackets: .
14
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
Every start tag must have a matching closing tag: element body
.”) Wave Research has such tags in file 222 and 232 marked
by the use of “<” and “>” and has a closing tag Wave Research, Fig. 2.
However, unlike Dr. Russ’ XML example where the tags are labeled (e.g.,
bookstore, book category, title discussed and illustrated in Russ Decl.
80-81), the Examiner determines Wave Research has an empty tag
marked out by the use of “<” and See Ans. 7—8.
Appellant does not contest these specific findings that empty XML
element tags do not exist or that files 222 and 232 fail to represent empty
XML element tags of “file.” App. Br. 40-41; Reply Br. 14—17. In fact,
Appellant admits that empty-element tags exist. App. Br. 9 (discussing
“empty-element tags”). Furthermore, WR Provisional shows an example
HFML elements and format where descriptive tags (e.g., “hyperfile”) are
used with the known “<” “/ >” nomenclature. WR Provisional 197—98.
This illustrates both descriptive and empty tags would have been a known
options for an ordinarily skilled artisan using HFML. Given the record, the
Examiner reasonably determined Wave Research teaches a “digital asset of
the file has an associated element/object tag of ‘file’” (Ans. 7) and that
Wave Research discloses “the HFML descriptor file being an XML
application” having “elements/objects and elements/object tags” (id. at 8)
associated therewith as recited.
To be sure, Wave Research describes various “assets,” including
“files, records, or other digital assets” separate from the descriptor file.
Wave Research 10:8—14; see also App. Br. 12 (discussing “data assets (such
as computer files)”). We thus agree that the digital assets come from
15
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
disparate sources. Reply Br. 17, 19. Even so, data files (e.g., descriptor
files) themselves are described in Wave Research as digital asset. See Wave
Research 13:7; see also Ans. 11 (discussing an e-CLIP9) and App. Br. 38
(summarizing the Examiner’s position that Wave Research teaches files
themselves are objects). As such, Wave Research’s various components of
the descriptor file (e.g., 202, 212, 222, and 232) and the descriptor file itself
are both reasonably mapped to the objects or elements. See Wave Research,
Fig. 2.
Accordingly, Wave Research teaches the recited “first object [that] is
an Extensible Markup Language element” of “the at least one object” as
recited in claim 1. See Ans. 7—9, 14.
B. “ [Ejncrypting at least a portion of the first object according to at
least one cryptographic scheme determined at least in part by the
object tag ”
Claim 1 also recites “encrypting at least a portion of the first object
according to at least one cryptographic scheme determined at least in part by
the object tag.” Appellant argues that Wave Research does not perform this
recited “encrypting” step. App. Br. 8, 34—36, 40-41, 234—36. In particular,
Appellant contends that the digital asset in Wave Research is left unmodified
and does not have an associated object tag. App. Br. 8, 40; Reply Br. 17.
Rather, a separate identifier of the asset is created. App. Br. 8. Notably, the
9 Wave Research discusses the e-CLIP “is represented by a unique identifier
which, in one embodiment is ... a cryptographic hash binary sequence list
identifier. . . . [T]he cryptographic hash binary sequence list identifier may
represent any number of digital assets[.]” Wave Research 19:17—21.
16
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
’433 patent itself leaves the object unmodified (step 606) creating a copy to
modify (steps 608—611). The ’433 patent, Fig. 6.
We disagree that Wave Research does not teach digital assets (e.g.,
objects), such as descriptor file’s elements, having an associated object tag.
Regarding whether a portion of this object is encrypted as recited, Appellant
argues that Wave Research’s digital assets and the descriptor file are not
encrypted but hashed using a one-way function. App. Br. 11, 36, 41, 235.
We are not persuaded.
As the Examiner explains, encryption is described separately from
decryption in the ’433 patent. Ans. 9 (citing Final Act. § X.D); see also
Final Act. 132 (citing the ’433 patent 1:33—40 and discussing that
decryption, which is not recited in claim 1, is a separate process from
encryption). This understanding is also supported by Appellant’s discussion
that encryption is separate from decryption. See App. Br. 11. Also, the ’433
patent describes the encryption process as “involv[ing] the manipulation of
data so that it is unreadable, in effect making the content inaccessible, to an
unauthorized entity.” The ’433 patent 1:33—35, cited in Final Act. 132.
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that a reasonable
understanding of “encryption” from the perspective of an ordinary skilled
artisan involves “a process of making data unreadable/indecipherable for
protection purposes.” Ans. 9 (citing “Computer Dictionary”10). Appellant
does not challenge this understanding. In fact, Appellant discusses that
encryption involves “the obfuscation of data” and manipulating a message
10 Microsoft® Computer Dictionary (2d ed. 1994). Final Act. 131 (no page
number provided).
17
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
“so that its substance cannot be determined.” App. Br. 11 (citing Bruce
Schneier, Applied Cryptography 1—9 (2nd ed. 1996)). Thus, given the
record, a reasonable understanding of the phrase “encrypting at least a
portion of the first object” in claim 1 includes manipulating or obfuscating a
portion of the first object so that it is unreadable.
Wave Research teaches using cryptographic hashes to generate both
the digital asset identifiers for the descriptor file and the identifier of the
descriptor file itself (i.e., a cryptographic hash binary sequence list
identifier). Wave Research 15:1—6, 18:6—13, 19:20-20:2, Fig. 2. The
cryptographic hash binary sequence list identifier “can be thought of as the
key to the box of keys that are listed in the descriptor file” used to locate and
verify the descriptor file. Id. at 18:11; id. at 15:1—6, 17:2—5, 18:6—13; see
also App. Br. 13 (discussing “[a] cryptographic hash descriptor file
identifier[,]” which is part of the e-CLIP). Thus, the descriptor file is an
object, which is in an XML format as explained above, that is also hashed.
Notably, all of these identifiers are generated using a cryptographic
hash function, such as MD5 algorithm in the preferred embodiment. Wave
Research 15:8—9. Appellant asserts that “MD5 algorithm is not known for
use as an encryption algorithm.” App. Br. 16. We are not persuaded.
First, Appellant points to no supporting evidence. See id. Second,
Wave Research describes the hash as “cryptographic” and also indicates that
the hash is commonly used in encryption. Wave Research 13:12—17, Fig. 2.
This discussion in Wave Research at least suggests that the hashes on
various objects (e.g., the descriptor file) are a form of encryption. See id.
Third, the Examiner’s position is further bolstered in that the resulting hash
18
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
is a binary identifier that is obfuscates or manipulates its real data into a
meaningless, alphanumerical string. Id. at 10:8—17, 15:1—13, 20:14—22; Fig.
2, cited in Final Act. 132. For example, as shown above in cited Figure 2,
the hash value (e.g., file identifier 230’s value within file 222) is
“5PI5TTAMKVVJGx5Q34QGFBLOOVD.” Id. at Fig. 2. We, therefore,
determine that the generated identifier formed by hashing is manipulated so
that is unreadable until the verification process. See id., Abstract and Fig. 2.
Additionally, Appellant states that Wave Research’s e-CLIP, which
the cryptographic hash binary sequence identifier for the descriptor file
becomes in one embodiment {id. at 17:2-4), operates on each asset “to
produce an identifier that enables . . . storage of the related assets for future
reproduction.” App. Br. 12; see also App. Br. 13—14. As such, although not
required to teach the “encrypting” step, we disagree that the hashed value is
not involved in reproducing the original assets/objects. See App. Br. 13.
Thus, both the taught or suggested XML descriptor file (e.g., an XML
object/element) and at least a portion of the objects contained within the file,
which include further XML objects/elements as taught by Wave Research,
are encrypted using the cryptographic hashing feature (Wave Research 20:3—
13) as broadly as recited in claim 1.
Without providing a citation in Wave Research, Appellant discusses
an embodiment where the binary sequence list or asset identifier is stored as
a bar code. App. Br. 16—17; see Wave Research 18:19—19:7. Appellant
refers to this embodiment, attempting to illustrate that one skilled in the art
would have understood that “such a bar code representation would be useful
as an asset locator, but not as an asset encryptor.” App. Br. 17. This
19
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
passage in Wave Research relates to the storage of the hashed value and not
the encryption process. See Wave Research 18:19—19:7. Also, for the above
reasons, we disagree that Wave Research does not teach or suggests the
assets/objects are encrypted.
Wave Research further teaches “hash functions or . . . types of
functions based on the binary sequence (content) may be used to generate
assets identifiers” other than MD5. Id. at 16:12; id. at 16:12—14; see also
Ans. 10 (citing id. at 13:12—17). And Wave Research further teaches that
the “class of cryptographic hash functions” used “are commonly used in
encryption of digital information.” Id. at 13:12—15. Thus, even presuming a
MD5 algorithm is not considered to use encryption algorithm (App. Br. 16),
Wave Research suggests other cryptographic functions or algorithms (e.g.,
encryption schemes) can be used to generate the identifiers for
assets/objects. Wave Research therefore suggests additional functions may
be used to manipulate or obfuscate the objects in Wave Research so that they
are unreadable.
Without providing any supporting evidence, Appellant contends that
the statement that the cryptographic hash functions in Wave Research are
commonly used in encryption “is contrary to conventional knowledge within
the art.” App. Br. 15. We find insufficient, persuasive evidence to support
this position.
Accordingly, Wave Research teaches encrypting various objects.
Wave Research teaches not only encrypting the digital assets, whose
identifiers are placed in the descriptor file, but also encrypting the descriptor
file itself, which contains various objects or elements within its file.
20
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
Notably, the Examiner further states in the Answer when discussing
Wave Research that “encryption of the object is done . . . outside of the
descriptor file.” Ans. 12, 23. We take exception to this statement and do not
rely on it in concluding that Wave Research teaches encrypting a portion of
an object that is an XML element. That is, although Wave Research states
some assets (e.g., objects) themselves are hashed outside the descriptor file
(Wave Research 17:22—18:2), Wave Research also states the descriptor file
itself, which is another object as noted above and further contains other
objects/elements, is also hashed or encrypted {id. at 18:2—11).
Appellant further argues that even if hashing in Wave Research is
encryption, the encryption is not performed as recited. App. Br. 41, 234.
Specifically, the hashing in Wave Research, as asserted, is not done
according to a cryptographic scheme determined at least in part by the object
tag as recited in claim 1. Id. at 8, 36—38, 41; Reply Br. 19. Appellant argues
that the digital assets are not tagged and thus cannot be encrypted by a
schemed determined by such a tag. App. Br. 41. Appellant further argues
that only the tree-structure directory may have tags and this is where the
descriptor file is stored after hashing. Id. at 17, 41.
Some of Appellant’s contentions noted above are rendered moot to the
extent that the Examiner no longer relies exclusively on Wave Research to
teach the recited “encrypting” step. See Ans. 2, 4 (withdrawing the rejection
of claim 1 based on Wave Research alone). That is, the Examiner continues
to rely on Wave Research to teach encrypting and storing an object for
subsequent use, but determines the encryption as specifically recited in claim
1 is taught by the collective teachings of Wave Research and Pond. Ans.
21
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
14—15, 23—26. In particular, the Examiner determines that Wave Research
does not teach an encryption techniques determined in part by an object tag
as recited. Ans. 13—14,23—26. As presented, the rejection cites to Pond and
Wave Research to teach encrypting the object according to a cryptographic
scheme determined in part by the object tag as recited in claim 1 and storing
such an encrypted object. See id.
Regarding the specific combination of Wave Research/Pond,
Appellant argues that neither reference teaches an object to be encrypted is
an XML element. App. Br. 235. We disagree for the above reasons when
discussing Wave Research. Appellant further contends that neither
reference teaches the object to be encrypted has an object tag. Id. We
further disagree for the above reasons. See also Ans. 14.
Moreover, Appellant asserts that Pond assigns identifiers (IDs) to the
PC, the mode, the user, and the group, but not the data. App. Br. 235. Even
if true, claim 1 does not require assigning IDs to data. Rather, claim 1
recites “encrypting” at least some of the first object according to a
cryptographic scheme determined in part by the object tag.
Appellant also argues that Pond “generate[s] a label for the data, but
do[es] not use an object tag in the sense that would be applied to an XML
element, as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 235. This argument attacks Pond
without considering what the combination of Wave Research’s and Pond’s
teachings would have predictably yielded to one skilled in the art. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
22
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
As explained previously, Wave Research teaches or suggests an XML
asset/object (e.g., file 222) of a descriptor file having a tag (e.g., an empty
tag) and encrypts (e.g., hashes) the asset/object to create an identifiers (e.g.,
the cryptographic hash binary sequence list identifier or e-CLIP). Wave
Research 13:12—18, 17:2—9. Wave Research further suggests cryptographic
techniques based on the asset’s contents can be used in Wave Research’s
system. Id. at 16:1—14. However, as acknowledged by the Examiner, Wave
Research does not discuss the described cryptographic schemes are
determined at least in part by the object tag as recited and turns to Pond.
Ans. 14—15, 23—26. Pond teaches using a label of a file/asset for encryption,
such a label being prefixed to asset/file. Pond 6:6—9, 22—34, 6:64—7:2, cited
in Ans. 24; see also Pond 5:10-13. Thus, Pond teaches and suggests using a
label, such as a descriptive tag as opposed to an empty tag in Wave
Research, to indicate the appropriate encryption scheme for the assets in
Wave Research and to secure sensitive data. See Ans. 24—26.
Appellant asserts “one of skill in the art would have no reason to
apply the teachings of’ Pond to Wave Research. App. Br. 235. In
particular, Appellant argues “[tjhere is no point to encrypting the descriptor
files, because these are only used to verify the contents of the data assets.”
Reply Br. 19; id. at 19—20. Appellant also contends that Pond concerns a
more complex process for encryption than is suitable to Wave Research’s
system and would not look to Pond to encrypt data. App. Br. 235—36; Reply
Br. 20—21. In the Reply Brief, Appellant further asserts Pond’s functionality
adds complexity and reduces throughput with no benefit. Reply Br. 20.
23
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
The Examiner responds to these arguments related to combining
Pond’s encryption technique with Wave Research. Ans. 14—15. In
particular, the Examiner provides various reasons one skilled in the art
would apply Pond’s teachings to Wave Research, including to provide an
additional level of security to specific data, such as confidential or sensitive
asset file information. Id. at 15 (citing Final Act.11 5—6 of U.S. Application
No. 10/194,742,12 now abandoned). In this Final Action, the rejection
discusses applying Pond’s encryption technique to another reference so as to
secure stored, sensitive information. Final Act. 5—6 of U.S. Application No.
10/194,742 (citing Pond 2:56—59).
The Examiner provides additional findings related to Pond in the
Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 24 (citing Pond 3:5—7, 4:58—60, 5:10-14, 6:6—9,
22—34, 6:64—7:2, Fig. 3 (item 70)). The Examiner adds that Wave Research
could benefit from securing sensitive information and prevent unauthorized
use. Id. at 14—15, 25—26. As such, although we agree with Appellant that
Wave Research does not discuss “the confidential nature of the file object’”
(Reply Br. 20), Pond suggests that sometimes stored information contains
sensitive or confidential data, including some of the stored data in Wave
Research, and that such information can be protected and benefit from using
an encryption scheme. Pond 3:5—7, 4:58—60, cited in Ans. 24.
11 There is more than one Final Action in U.S. Application No. 10/914,742.
We presume the Final Action referred to was mailed April 3, 2009.
12 A decision from the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) was rendered,
affirming the rejections of claims 95, 97—100, 106—112, and 116—119. Ex
Parte Kolouch, Appeal No. 2010-011180, 2013 WE 3294682 (PTAB Apr.
30, 2013).
24
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
Additionally, Wave Research discusses storing files “for safekeeping”
and in a “safe location.” Wave Research, Abstract, cited in Ans. 14. As
such, even Wave Research is concerned with the safekeeping of files. Wave
Research, Abstract. Pond discusses a technique for safekeeping stored
information in files by controlling access using a cryptographic scheme.
Pond 4:58—60, cited in Ans. 24. Specifically, the process involves protecting
sensitive data stored in the computer by encrypting the file’s data using key
streams. Pond 3:5—7, cited in Ans. 24. As such, Pond teaches a known
technique for safekeeping files and protecting sensitive/confidential
information, including any such information in Wave Research, through
encrypting. Ans. 14—15, 24—26. Accordingly, the Examiner has provided
some reasons with underlying, rational bases to combine Pond with Wave
Research.
Given the record, one skilled in the art would have recognized
combining Pond’s techniques with Wave Research to secure files for
safekeeping to only authorized users (e.g., those having specifics IDs) and
such a combination would predictably yield stored file data that is both safe
and secure. See id.
Concerning Pond’s alleged complex encryption process and one
skilled in the art purportedly not looking to Pond’s teaching related to
encryption, Appellant provides no persuasive evidence or reasoning why one
skilled in the art would not have considered using Pond’s scheme for
encryption. See App. Br. 235—36. Mere assertions by counsel cannot take
the place of factually supported objective evidence demonstrating such
contentions. See Huang, 100 F.3d at 139-40. Also, whether or not such a
25
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
scheme is complex or reduces throughput, these contentions alone do not
demonstrate sufficiently that Pond teaches away from the combination as
presented. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
For the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellant argues: (1) the
Examiner’s conclusion related to Wave Research, such as providing a secure
safe location to asset files, are “unrelated to the citations from the reference”
(Reply Br. 18—19), (2) “[tjhere is no point to encrypting the descriptor files,
because these are only used to verify the contents of the data assets when
transferred or duplicated” (Reply Br. 19), and (3) “encrypting] the
descriptor files would function to limit who could verify the states of the
digital assets” and would not be beneficial (Reply Br. 20). These arguments
are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41.
Nonetheless, to the extent these arguments were previously presented,
we refer to the above discussion and note that Wave Research discusses
storing assets for safekeeping and encrypting not only the digital assets
within the descriptor file but also the descriptor file itself. Wave Research,
Abstract, 18:6—22, Fig. 1 (step 108, 112); see Ans. 11 (discussing the e-
CLIP) and App. Br. 38 (summarizing the Examiner’s position that Wave
Research teaches files themselves are objects). Additionally, the rejection
suggests to use Pond’s encryption scheme to add security to Wave Research
system for confidential data and not to replace Wave Research’s verification
system. Ans. 15 (discussing “provid[ing] further security for sensitive asset
file information”) (emphasis added). Moreover, even assuming that
Appellant is correct that the proposed combination “would function to limit
who could verify the states of [certain] digital assets” (Reply Br. 20), this
26
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
does not destroy Wave Research’s function to verify all the digital assets as
argued; rather, the combination would at best limit the verification to those
authorized to access the assets/object containing sensitive information.
Appellant contends that Pond “generate[s] a label for the data, but
do[es] not use an object tag in the sense that would be applied to an XML
element as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 235. Yet, as discussed above, the
Examiner provides multiple reasons for applying Pond’s teaching of using a
label to Wave Research’s XML objects/elements and its associated
object/element tags to yield predictably a technique for determining an
encryption scheme based in part on an XML object/element tag. Ans. 14-
lb, 23—26. Appellant provides an inadequate rebuttal as to why one skilled
in the art would not look to Pond’s teachings related to encryption schemes
and why Pond’s teachings would not be applied to Wave Research’s XML
element and associated tag.
Appellant even further discusses an argument that Wave Research
does not teach identifying a cryptographic scheme associated with the
element tag and applying the scheme. App. Br. 38—39. Appellant also
argues that Wave Research does not teach relating the element tag to a
predetermined role-based access label and associated the cryptographic
scheme with the role-based access label to create a hierarchy. App. Br. 39.
Although these feature are found in other claims (e.g., dependent claims 18,
21, and 22 addressed below), no such limitation exists in claim 1 or any
other independent claim.
27
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
Appellant further contends that Wave Research and Pond do not teach
the limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 233. This mere allegation is not
persuasive.
Lastly, we have considered any remaining arguments presented for
Issue 3 related to claim 1 and are not persuaded. We refer and agree with
the Examiner’s determinations in this regard.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 based on Wave
Research, WR Provisional, and Pond.
2. Independent Claims 2 6, 10, 17, 20, 29, and 31
Turning to the other independent claims, similar arguments are
presented. For example, independent claim 4 recites an article of
manufacture comprising a medium embodying one or more programs that
perform the same “providing” and “selecting” step as claim 1. Similar
arguments are presented for this claim. App. Br. 67—76, 254—58. Thus, we
are not persuaded of error for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1.
As for independent claims 2 and 5, they recite respectively a method
and an article of manufacture comprising a medium embodying one or more
programs that perform a similar “providing” and “selecting” steps as claim
1. However, we note that claims 2 and 5 are broader in scope than claim 1
in the sense that the step of providing at least one object consistent with a
data format that is an XML format does not require the at least one object to
have an XML format. The arguments for claims 2 and 5 are the same or
similar to those for claim 1. App. Br. 43—52, 80-89, 240-43, 262—65. We
are not persuaded for the same reasons as discussed above. We additionally
note that, even if HFML is not found to be XML, a description file and its
28
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
contents in HFML are at least in a data format consistent with an XML
format as recited in claims 2 and 5, because HFML is based on XML as
previously discussed.
Independent claims 3 and 6 recite a method and an article of
manufacture comprising a medium embodying one or more programs that
perform the same or similar “providing” and “selecting” step as claim 1.
The distinction in these independent claims is the specific recitation to “the
object tag is an Extensible Markup Language tag” rather than the first object
is an XML element. As explained above, the object and its tag are in an
XML format as taught or suggested by Wave Research and thus satisfy this
limitation. The arguments for claims 3 and 6 are the same or similar to those
for claim 1. App. Br. 54—63, 93—102, 247—50, 269—72. We are not
persuaded for the same reasons as already discussed.
Independent claim 10 is similar to claim 1 but also recites “a plurality
of objects,” “respective object tags are formatted within the first data set
according to a syntax of an Extensible Markup Language,” and “creating a
second data set.” The arguments for claim 10 are the same or similar to
those for claim 1. App. Br. 106—15, 277—80. For the above reasons, we are
not persuaded. As previously noted, the descriptor file 200 can be an object
containing numerous assets/elements (e.g., 202, 212, 222, and 232). We
refer above for details.
Independent claims 17 and 29 recite a method and a medium similar
to claim 1 but claim “selecting, from the object, an element having an
element tag” and “the element is an [XML] element.” The arguments for
claims 17 and 29 are the same or similar to those for claim 1. App. Br.
29
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
134-43, 176—85, 320—24, 372—76. We are not persuaded for the same
reasons as discussed above.
Independent claims 20 and 31 recite a method and medium similar to
claim 1 but claim “selecting, from the object, a plurality of elements having
respective element tags” and “the elements are [XML] elements.” The
arguments for claims 20 and 31 are the same or similar to those for claims 1,
10, and 17. App. Br. 148-57, 199-208, 334—37, 386-90. We are not
persuaded for the reasons previously discussed.
As noted above, Appellant contends that Wave Research and Pond do
not teach the limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 233. The same or similar
argument is presented for the other independent claims rejected based on
Wave Research and Pond. See, e.g., App. Br. 240 (claim 2), 247 (claim 3),
254 (claim 4), and 262 (claim 5). These mere allegations are not persuasive.
Lastly, we have considered any remaining arguments presented in
Issue 3 for the independent claims and are not persuaded. We refer and
agree with the Examiner’s determinations in this regard.
Based on the record, we sustain the rejection of independent claims
2—6, 10, 17, 20, 29, and 31 based on Wave Research, WR Provisional, and
Pond.
3. Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and further recites “each encrypted
object is formatted within the second data set according to one of the syntax
and13 another syntax.” For this claim, Appellant repeats the same or similar
13 Appellant reproduce this claim stating that the language in claim 11 recites
“according to the syntax or another syntax.” App. Br. 116, 281 (italics
30
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
arguments presented for independent claim 10. Compare App. Br. 114—15,
277—80 with App. Br. 116—17, 284—86. Appellant also refers to the
discussion of claim 10 (App. Br. 116—17, 286) and the arguments “discussed
above” that neither reference discloses encrypting an object and respective
object tag that are formatted according to an XML syntax (App. Br. 286).
We disagree and refer above for details.
4. Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and further recites that “the other
syntax is of another” XML.14 Appellant repeats the same or similar
arguments presented for claim 10. App. Br. 118—19, 291—92. We are not
persuaded as discussed previously.
5. Claim 13—15
Claims 13—15 depend from claim 1. Each recites further details.
Appellant repeats the arguments presented for claim 1. App. Br. 122—23,
126—27, 129, 296—98, 302-04, 308—10. We are not persuaded as discussed
previously.
6. Claims 16, 21, 30, and 32
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and further recites “relating the
element tag to a predetermined role-based access label; and associating the
cryptographic scheme with the role-based access label.” Although not
argued when addressing Issue 3 (App. Br. 314—16), Appellant contends
added). We presume Appellant intended to use the phrase “according to one
of the syntax and another syntax” as presented in original claim 11. The
’433 patent 8:56—57; App. Br. 650.
14 Notably, neither claim 10 nor claim 11 recites an “other syntax.” We
presume “the other syntax” refers to the “another syntax” recited in claim
11.
31
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
when addressing Issue 1 that Wave Research does not teach this feature (id.
at 131—32). Specifically, Appellant asserts this feature is not taught because,
like the argument presented for claim 1, Wave Research does not disclose
digital assets having associated object tags. Id. at 131. Appellant also refers
to the arguments presented for claim 1. Id. at 132. We are not persuaded for
the above reasons.
Appellant also argues that the HFML tree structure in Wave Research
is not related to role-based access labels or that the cryptographic scheme is
not associated with role-based access labels. Id. at 131—32. Similarly,
Appellant discusses a previously presented argument that there is nothing
role-based about MD5 algorithm in Wave Research. Id. at 39.
We agree. The Examiner finds that Wave Research “discloses the file
name tag being associated with the ‘md5’ predetermined role-based access
label that is a cryptographic scheme” and quotes a passage from Wave
Research. Ans. 62 (citing Wave Research 20:14—2215). This passage
indicates that cryptographic hash identifier 230 is generated using a MD5
algorithm and represents a 27-character string located within the object.
Wave Research 20:18—19. In this manner, the element tag (e.g., the empty
“file” tag) is related to a label (e.g., “md5”) and the cryptographic scheme is
associated with this label. But, there is insufficient discussion by the
Examiner how the MD5 algorithm in Wave Research relates to a “role-based
access” label. See Ans. 62—63.
15 The Examiner cites 31:12—33:9 but the quoted passage appears on page
20.
32
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
Nonetheless, Wave Research also discusses using algorithms other
than MD5 without providing any specifics. Wave Research 16:1—14. This
suggests that one skilled in the art would look to other teachings, such as
Pond’s cryptographic algorithm, which is further cited and relied upon by
the Examiner in rejecting claim 16. Ans. 63 (citing Pond 3:5—7, 4:58—60,
5:10-14, 6:22—34, 6:64—7:2; Fig. 3 (item 70)). In particular, Pond discusses
a technique for controlling access to sensitive data stored in a computer.
Pond 4:58—60, cited in Ans. 63. The process of protecting sensitive data
stored in the computer is achieved by encrypting the file’s data using key
streams. Pond 3:5—7, cited in Ans. 63. To encrypt sensitive information, a
file label (e.g., 30 in Fig. 2) is prefixed to the file containing the sensitive
information. Pond 6:6—9; see also Pond, Fig. 2. As such, Pond suggests to
modify Wave Research’s file tagged objects to include a descriptive tag (as
oppose to an empty tag) that has a label indicating the encryption technique
that secures sensitive data as suggested by Pond. See Ans. 63—64.
Concerning the disputed “role-based access labels” in claim 16,
Pond’s file label includes Key Mix 36 containing five bit flags, one of which
is a Fabel-is-Present flag used to indicate whether the label is considered
present on the protected file and the remaining four of which are used to
designate which key streams 16, 22, 24, and 26 are to be used to encrypt the
file’s data. Pond 6:22—25, 28—34, cited in Ans. 63. Pond provides an
example of encrypting data according to the keys designated by Key Mix 36,
such as MID (Machine ID) and SID (Secondary ID). Id. at 6:64—7:2, cited
in Ans. 63.
33
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
To elaborate on the above discussion, the encryption technique may
use four different identifiers (IDs) to designate which key streams (e.g.,
keystreams 16, 22, 24, 26) are to be used to encrypt. Pond 5:20-34, 6:28—
34. These IDs include: MID that unique identifies each personal computer
(PC), Configuration ID (CID) that identifiers the PC as part of a particular
configuration in a network (e.g., a company name), Primary ID (PID) that
uniquely identifies an individual user logged-on to the PC, and SID that
identifies a logical group of users logged-on to the PC (e.g., a department
name). Pond 5:20-34; see also App. Br. 24 (discussing these IDs). Thus,
each of these IDs are associated with various roles the user can have (e.g., a
unique PC user, a user that is part of a particular configuration or company,
or user is part of a logical group or department). As such, these IDs signify
a role-based access label.
Moreover, each of these IDs (e.g., MID 12) generates an associated
key (e.g., MID Key 14), which in turn is used to generate a key stream (e.g.,
MID Key Stream 16). Pond 5:46—59, Fig. 1. As noted above, the key
stream is used to encrypt file data. Pond 6:28—34. Pond’s teaching
concerning the key stream being used to encrypt file data therefore, when
combined with Wave Research, teaches or suggests relating an element tag
(e.g., a descriptive tag like Pond’s label 30) to a predetermined role-based
access label (e.g., an ID) and associating the cryptographic scheme with the
role-based access label as recited in claim 16. We thus are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments.
Dependent claims 21, 30, and 32 recite the same or similar limitations
to claim 16 but depend from claims 20, 29, and 31 respectively. The
34
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
arguments for these claims are the same or similar to those of claims 1 and
16. App. Br. 159-60, 187-95, 210-11, 342-A4, 380-82, 39A-96. We are
not persuaded for the above reasons.
7. Claims 18 and 22
Claim 18 depends from claim 17 and recites “identifying the element
by the respective element tag, identifying the cryptographic scheme
associated with the element tag, and applying the identified cryptographic
scheme to the selected element to produce the encrypted element.” The
Examiner finds that these features are taught by Wave Research and Pond
collectively. Ans. 68—69 (citing Wave Research 13:12—18 and Pond 3:5—7,
4:58-60, 5:10-14, 6:6-9, 22-34, 6:6A-7:2).
Appellant refers to the arguments presented for claim 17. App. Br.
146, 330. When arguing claim 17, Appellant presents an assertion that the
latter “identifying” and “applying” limitations are not found in Wave
Research and repeats the Examiner’s findings. App. Br. 140-41. But,
Appellant does not point out any specific errors in the Examiner’s findings.
See id. We thus determine this argument is unavailing
Appellant also repeats the argument that Wave Research does not
teach the limitations of claim 18 and claim 22, which recites similar
limitations to claim 18, for reasons similar to those discussed with claims 17
and 20 respectively. App. Br. 145—46, 162—63, 328—30, 348—50. We are
not convinced for reasons previously set forth.
35
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
8. Claims 23—24
Claims 23 and 24 depend from claim 20. For these claims, Appellant
repeats argument previously presented for claim 20. App. Br. 165—66,
168—69, 354—356, 360-62. We determine these arguments are unavailing.
Appellant also asserts that Wave Research “does not disclose or
suggest the application of access authorization” (App. Br. 165), “the topic of
access authorization” {id.), “the application of authentication” (App. Br.
168), or “the topic of authentication” {id.). The Examiner finds that Wave
Research teaches the feature that the tag elements are unrelated to access
authorization. Ans. 78 (citing Wave Research 20:14—16, Fig. 2). We agree
with the Examiner. Also, assuming Appellant is correct that the Wave
Research does not discuss the application access authorization or
authentication {see App. Br. 165, 168), this assertion only bolsters
Examiner’s position that the recited element tag “includes identification
information unrelated to access authorization” and “unrelated to
authentication” as recited in claims 23 and 24 respectively. App. Br. 652—53
(italics added).
9. Claim 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 20. For claim 25, Appellant repeats the
same or similar arguments previous presented for claim 20 in asserting that
Wave Research and Pond do not teach the limitations in claim 25. App. Br.
171—72, 366—68. Based on the above discussion, we determine the
Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 25.
36
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
In summary and for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1—6, 10-18, 20-25, and 29—32 as being unpatentable over Wave
Research, WR Provisional, and Pond.
C. Obviousness Rejection Wave Research, WR Provisional, Pond, and
AAPA (Issue 4)
Claims 7—9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Wave Research, WR Provisional, Pond, and AAPA. Ans. 95—104. The
Examiner turns to AAPA (the ’433 patent 4:47—52) to teach the process of
embedding encrypted objects within other objects is known to ordinarily
skilled artisan and thus that the recited “creating” step in claim 7 and
“embedded” feature of claim 19 would have been obvious when this
teaching is combined with the Wave Research/WR Provisional/Pond system.
Ans. 101, 103-04.16
Many of the arguments for independent claim 7 repeat those for
independent claim 1. App. Br. 216—19, 401^403. Moreover, the AAPA
need not overcome the alleged deficiency for the reasons already discussed
related to Wave Research, WR Provisional, and Pond. See, e.g., App. Br.
218-19, 403.
Appellant nakedly asserts that the limitations of claims 7—9 and 19 are
not taught by Wave Research, Pond, and AAPA. App. Br. 216, 220, 223,
16 We note that Wave Research teaches the descriptor file can include
cryptographic hash descriptor file identifiers and that the descriptor file
containing such cryptographic identifiers can also be cryptographically
hashed (e.g., embedded). Wave Research 10:11—17, 18:6—11.
37
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
227, 401, 404, 406, 409. These arguments are unavailing because they fail
to point out any specific errors in the Examiner’s findings.
As for claims 8, 9, and 19, Appellant repeats argument previously
presented for claims 7 and 17. App. Br. 221—22, 224—25, 227—28, 405^409.
Lastly, we have considered any remaining arguments and are not
persuaded. We refer and agree with the Examiner’s determinations in this
regard.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 7—9 and 19 as being
unpatentable over Wave Research, WR Provisional, Pond, and AAPA.
D. Obviousness Rejection Based on Herz, Pond, and Fletcher (Issue 5)
Claims 1—6, 10—18, 20—25, and 29—32 are also rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Herz, Pond, and Fletcher. Ans. 104—165. In
addition to those arguments presented under the subsections entitled
“Appellant’s Position,” we address any arguments presented within the
subheading of “The Examiner’s Position” (see, e.g., App. Br. 414-45) of the
Appeal Brief. However, we have not considered any specific argument that
may have been presented in a response referenced but are not specifically
articulated in the briefs (e.g., “Sept 2014 PO Response I, pages 44, 46,” cited
in App. Br. 415). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(l)(vii); cf. 37 C.F.R. §§
41.106(b)(3) and 42.6(a)(3).
1. Independent Claim 1
The Examiner relies on Herz to teach many of the limitations in claim
1, including providing the information in a desired format and selecting an
object having an object tag. Ans. 104—105 (citing Herz 5:6—20, 6:7—33,
38
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
29:25—41; Final Act. 5, 8—9 ofU.S. Application No. 10/194,742 (citing Herz
5:6—20, 6:7—33); and Kolouch, 2013 WL 3294682 at 1—7*17). The Examiner
determines that Herz does not teach the first object is an XML element and
turns to Fletcher’s teachings when combined with Herz to teach this
limitation. Ans. 106 (citing Final Act. 10—11 of U.S. Application No.
10/194,742 (citing Fletcher 3:45^47, Figs. 1—2) and Kolouch, 2013 WL
3294682, at *5—6). The Examiner also states that Herz does not teach the
recited “encrypting” and “storing” steps and turns to Pond’s teachings when
combined with Herz to teach these features. Ans. 106—108 (citing Final Act.
5—6 ofU.S. Application No. 10/194,742 (citing Pond 2:56—59, 3:5—7, 4:58—
60, 5:10-14, 6:7-13, 22-34, 6:6A-7:2, 9:10-55) and Kolouch, 2013 WL
3294682, at *1-5).
Initially, Appellant argues that Herz, Pond, and Fletcher does not
teach the limitations claim 1. App. Br. 414. Such assertion does not point to
any specific limitations within claim 1 that are not taught and also fails to
provide any supporting evidence for such contentions. We are not
persuaded.
Appellant also argues that “‘it would not be feasible to modify either
Herz et al. system and Pond et al. system to include or substitute XML
formatting and tags, absent a substantial redesign that would not be obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art’” App. Br. 415; see also Reply Br. 23—24
(discussing “a daunting task [that] would slow down the process for each
user.”) This argument fails to have sufficient, supporting evidence
17 The Examiner cites to pages 2—13 of the Decision’s slip opinion. See Ans.
105 (citing the “‘742 App Board Decision, page 2-13”). We refer to the
analogous pages of the Westlaw citation throughout this opinion.
39
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
demonstrating that substantial redesign is required. It is well-settled that
counsel’s arguments cannot take the place of factually supported objective
evidence. See Huang, 100 F.3d at 139-40.
Appellant argues Herz teaches constructing a profile using target
object attributes (App. Br. 416), but these profiles are not tags but a list of
attributes or data collections that describe the target object. App. Br. 417.
Appellant further asserts Herz’s attributes of a target object, such as a text,
measurements, and object associations, are not tags associated with XML
elements as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 417, 421. We disagree that the
attributes discussed in Herz (see Herz 6:18—33) cannot be “tags” but agree,
as does the Examiner, that Herz’s tags are not XML tags or tags associated
with XML elements. See Ans. 105—06. Yet, the Examiner relies on Fletcher
in combination with Herz to teach the recited “first object is an Extensible
Markup Language [XML] element.” See id. Moreover, Appellant argues
that Herz does not suggest the target object is encrypted according to the
cryptographic scheme determined by an object tag. App. Br. 421. Yet, the
Examiner relies on Pond in combination with Herz to teach this limitation in
claim 1. Ans. 106-08. Thus, these individual attacks cannot show
nonobviousness where, as is here, the rejection is based on a combination of
references. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Next, Appellant asserts that “one of skill in the art would not see any
benefit to applying XML formatting to the Herz et al. system, nor is it
apparent exactly how XML formatting would be applied.” App. Br. 417. In
particular, Appellant contends that Fletcher discloses “a very different type
40
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
of system” with static indicators. Id. On the other hand, Herz teaches “a
dynamic system” where information is constantly being modified. Id.
We initially note that
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Moreover, although Dr.
Russ indicates that including XML formatting of Fletcher into Herz is “more
complicated” (Russ Decl. 1106; see also Russ Decl. 104—5), he does not
establish sufficiently that one skilled would not combined the references or
fail to see a benefit to such a combination as explained below in more detail.
We further disagree that data contained inside an XML tag, including
that of Fletcher, is static. See App. Br. 418. For example, Appellant has not
demonstrated convincingly that the value of the XML tags (e.g., the title
(“Everyday Italian”) and author (“Giada De Laurentiis”) discussed in Russ
Decl. 1 80) could not be updated just as Herz’s data may be updated and thus
can be dynamic. Also, although Herz discusses the user preference profile
or target profile interest summaries may be updated (see Herz 5:28—30, Fig.
10 (step 1108)), Appellant fails to provide a citation where Herz teaches that
the target profile for the objects (e.g., its attributes) “are constantly being
evaluated and modified.” App. Br. 417. Thus, we disagree that Fletcher is
so different (see id.) that one skilled in the art would not see a benefit to
applying its XMF formatting to Herz.
41
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
Appellant even further states “[i]t is submitted that one of skill in the
art would not redesign the Herz et al. system to replace the preferred cluster
organization with XML formatting that provides no clear advantage.” App.
Br. 418. Specifically, Appellant contends that XML formatting was
available to Herz, but Herz chose to use “a hierarchical organization
protocol” or formatting instead, such that “it is submitted that XML
formatting would not be an obvious substitution.” Id.
We are unpersuaded given the evidence of record. Even presuming
Herz teaches using a format that is not XML (see id.), this does not suggest
that one skilled in the art would not have recognized using other formats to
organize data (e.g., target object data). In fact, Herz teaches servers
containing the desired information may have “differing formats” and that
organization of the files containing the information may vary from server to
server (Herz 29:20-41, cited in part in Ans. 105), suggesting that different
organizational formats would have been recognized by artisans and used.
Moreover, the Examiner provides reasons or advantages that one skilled in
the art may have recognized by using an XML format, including to facilitate
file and information sharing and to increase overall process functionality.
Ans. 16—17 (citing Kolouch, 2013 WL 3294682, at *5—6).18
18 The Examiner also refers to additional advantages one skilled in the art
would recognized for using XML objects/elements with tags over attributes
Ans. 17 n.7 (citing http://www.w3schools.com/dtd/dtd_el_vs_attr.asp, now
available at http://www.w3schools.com/xml/xml_dtd_el_vs_attr.asp). See
also Russ Decl. 1 86. However, this discussion appears to compare XML
elements with XML attributes, not the “attributes” particularly discussed in
Herz.
42
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
To these points, Appellant asserts that “it would not even be possible
to XML-format this ever-changing data stream” and doing so “would
provide no discemable advantage.” Reply Br. 22. As discussed above, such
a combination is feasible with a discemable advantage, and Appellant has
not provided a persuasive rebuttal to the contrary. Moreover, we are not
persuaded that the target objects described in Herz are ever-changing as
previously explained.
For the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellant also contends that the
combination of Herz with Fletcher would not be possible to format “for
individual redaction.” Reply Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 22—23. We are not
persuaded. First, this argument is waived as it was not raised in the Appeal
Brief or is in response to an argument presented by the Examiner’s Answer.
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Second, Appellant does not provide any
convincing evidence to support this contention, such as citations to Fletcher
or Herz. See Reply Br. 22. Third, the Examiner does not suggest replacing
Herz’s attributes with Fletcher’s tags, but rather to combine or incorporate
the features to facilitate file and information sharing while maintaining the
“existing ‘searching and retrieval’ functionality.” Ans. 16; see also Ans.
16—17, 106 (citing Kolouch, 2013 WL 3294682, at *5—6). For example,
Fletcher discusses using tags to assist in transferring the information from a
larger set of information to authorized users, such that file and information
sharing to the correct users is facilitated. Fletcher 2:20—24, 3:45—47, Fig. 2.
Fletcher also allows the group categories assigned to the users (e.g., security
clearance level) to be easily modifiable (Fletcher 2:37—39), which further
assists in file and information sharing.
43
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends “[i]t is not clear which
‘additional functionality’ the examiner is referring.” Reply Br. 23 (no
citation provided). For clarity, we presume the additional functionality that
the Examiner is referring to is file and information sharing. See Ans. 16
(discussing an “existing ‘searching and retrieval’ functionality” and then
“also provide the ability to ‘facilitate file and information sharing’, [sic]
thereby increasing the overall functionality of the method.”) Thus, given the
record and an ordinarily skilled artisan’s background knowledge, using
XML, as taught by Fletcher, with Herz’s system would serve at least one
additional purpose contrary to Appellant’s assertion. See id.
Although not disputing that data encryption was known (App. Br.
418—19) and that some users in Herz acknowledges the need for privacy and
security {id. at 419—20), Appellant contends that one would not combine
Pond with Herz because such a modification “would require substantial
system modification while providing no clear advantage.” Id. at 421; see
also id. at 419—21. As noted by the Examiner, the combination of Herz and
Pond in the rejection “would not replace the user’s security protocol of Herz
et al., but incorporate the data encryption of Pond et al. with the user’s
security protocol of Herz et al.” Ans. 18. Further, contrary to Appellant’s
assertions (App. Br. 422), the combined Herz/Pond system provides an
added benefit of not only securing the user’s transactions but also the
concerned data itself when stored to prevent unauthorized users for access.
Ans. 18; see also Ans. 106-08.
Also, the inclusion of Pond’s encryption is not necessary applied to all
data and related objects, such that “complete privacy and inaccessibility of
44
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
user transactions and profile summary information” results as asserted by
Appellant. App. Br. 421. As such, the combination would not “hinder
implementation of the system” (id.) or “undo [Herz’s] solutions” (id. at 422)
as asserted. Moreover, Herz provides security to the user and its
transactions but Pond, when combined with Herz, provides further security
to at least some data without compromising Herz’s technique. We further
refer to the Examiner’s determination of how Pond’s encryption technique
combined with Herz teaches or suggests the recited “encrypting” step. Ans.
106-08.
Appellant also argues that Pond’s encryption scheme is complex,
purportedly illustrating there is no reason to modify Herz. See App. Br. 421
and Reply Br. 25. Complexity of the scheme does not establish sufficiently
that Pond teaches away from combining with Herz or would render the
combined Herz/Pond system inoperable. As such, we are not persuaded.
Concerning any allegations concerning impermissible hindsight and
the combination of Herz, Pond, and Fletcher (App. Br. 422; Reply Br.
26—28), we are not persuaded for the above reasons. See also Ans. 19.
For the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts it is not clear
how replacing the main aspect of the Herz system (e.g., customized user
profiling) with XMF tags would provide multiple advantages. Reply Br. 22.
This argument is waived, but nonetheless, we refer to our above discussion
when addressing that the combination of Herz and Fletcher does not suggest
replacing the customized user profiling.
Appellant also asserts for the first time in the Reply Brief that (1)
Fletcher uses XMF tags to redact the document not to encrypt (Reply Br.
45
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
22—23), (2) “it is not apparent. . . why the Fletcher et al. redaction scheme
would be applied because the data is custom tailored” {id. at 24; see also id.
at 25), and (3) the complexity of Pond’s encryption is time and power
consuming, slowing down Herz’s process with no benefit (Reply Br. 25).
These arguments are waived. Moreover, some of these assertions are mere
allegations without supporting evidence. See id. at 24—25 (providing no
citation to Herz for the assertion that Herz “provides a custom data package
to [the] user.”) We further note that the rejection does not rely on Fletcher
to teach the recited “encrypting” step but rather just to format objects as
XML elements. Compare Ans. 106 (discussing Fletcher and the recitation
“the first object is an Extensible Markup Language element” (emphasis
omitted)) with id. at 106-08 (discussing Pond related to the “encrypting” and
“storing” steps).
Lastly, we have considered any remaining arguments related to claim
1 and are not persuaded. We refer and agree with the Examiner’s
determinations in this regard.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 based on Herz, Pond, and Fletcher.
2. Independent Claims 2 6, 10, 17, 20, 29, and 31
Turning to the other independent claims, independent claim 4 recites
an article of manufacture comprising a medium embodying one or more
programs that perform the same “providing” and “selecting” step as claim 1.
The same or similar arguments are presented for this claim. App. Br. 452—
60. We are not persuaded of error for the same reasons discussed above for
claim 1.
46
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
As for independent claims 2 and 5, they recite respectively a method
and an article of manufacture comprising a medium embodying one or more
programs that perform the same or similar “providing” and “selecting” steps
as claim 1. We note that claims 2 and 5 are broader in scope than claim 1 in
the sense that the step of providing at least one object consistent with a data
format that is an XML format does not require the at least one object to
have an XML format. The arguments for claims 2 and 5 are the same or
similar to those for claim 1. Id. at 427—34, 466—74. We are not persuaded
for the same reasons as discussed above.
Independent claims 3 and 6 recite a method and an article of
manufacture comprising a medium embodying one or more programs that
perform the same or similar “providing” and “selecting” step as claim 1.
The distinction in these independent claims is the specific recitation to “the
object tag is an Extensible Markup Language tag” rather than the first object
is an XML element. As explained above, the object and its tag are in an
XML format when Herz is combined with Fletcher’s teachings and thus the
combination satisfies this limitation. The arguments for claims 3 and 6 are
the same or similar to those for claim 1. Id. at 439-46, 480—88. We are not
persuaded for the same reasons as already discussed.
Independent claim 10 is similar to claim 1 but also recites “a plurality
of objects,” “respective object tags are formatted within the first data set
according to a syntax of an Extensible Markup Language,” and “creating a
second data set.” The arguments for claim 10 are the same or similar to
those for claim 1. Id. at 494—503. For the above reasons, we are not
persuaded.
47
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
Independent claims 17 and 29 recite a method and a medium similar
to claim 1 but claim “selecting, from the object, an element having an
element tag” and “the element is an [XML] element.” The arguments for
claims 17 and 29 are the same or similar to those for claim 1. Id. at 537-45,
593—601. We are not persuaded for the same reasons as discussed above.
Independent claims 20 and 31 recite a method and medium similar to
claim 1 but claim “selecting, from the object, a plurality of elements having
respective element tags” and “the elements are [XML] elements.” The
arguments for claims 20 and 31 are the same or similar to those for claims 1,
10, and 17. Id. at 556—64, 612—20. We are not persuaded for the reasons
previously discussed.
As noted above, Appellant contends that Herz, Pond, and Fletcher do
not teach the limitations of claim 1. Id. at 414. The same or similar
argument is presented for the other independent claims rejected based on
Herz, Pond, and Fletcher. See, e.g., id. at 427 (claim 2), 439 (claim 3), 452
(claim 4), and 466 (claim 5). These mere allegations are not persuasive.
Lastly, we have considered any remaining arguments presented in
Issue 3 for the independent claims and are not persuaded. We refer and
agree with the Examiner’s determinations in this regard.
Based on the record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 2—6, 10, 17, 20, 29, and 31.
3. Claim 11
Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and further recites “each encrypted
object is formatted within the second data set according to one of the syntax
and another syntax.” For this claim, Appellant repeats the same or similar
48
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
arguments presented for claim 10. See id. at 505-07. Appellant also refers
to the discussion of claim 10 (id. at 507) and the arguments “discussed
above,” including that none of the references disclose or suggest encrypting
an XML object according to a cryptographic scheme determined by a
respective XML object tag associated with the XML object as recited in
claim 10 (id.). We disagree and refer above for details.
4. Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and further recites that “the other
syntax is of another” XML.19 Appellant repeats the same or similar
arguments presented for claim 10. Id. at 509—11. We are not persuaded as
discussed previously.
5. Claim 13 16, 18, 21—25, 30, and 32
Claims 13—15 depend from independent claim 1, and claim 16
depends from claim 15. Each recites further details. For claims 13—16,
Appellant repeats the same or similar arguments presented for claim 1. Id. at
513-16, 518-21, 524—26, 529-32.
Claim 18 depends from claim 17. Appellant repeats the arguments
presented for claim 17. Id. at 548—51.
Claims 21—25 depend from claim 20. Appellant repeats the
arguments presented for claim 20. Id. at 567—69, 572—75, 577—79, 581—83,
585-87.
19 Notably, neither claim 10 nor claim 11 recites an “other syntax.” We
presume “the other syntax” refers to the “another syntax” recited in claim
11.
49
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
Claim 30 depends from claim 29, and claim 32 depends from claim
31. For each of these claims, Appellant reiterates the arguments for claims
29 and 31 respectively. Id. at 604—06, 623—25.
We are not persuaded as discussed previously.
Accordingly and for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1—6, 10-18, 20-25, and 29—32 as being unpatentable over Herz,
Pond, and Fletcher.
E. Obviousness Rejection Herz, Pond, Fletcher, and AAPA (Issue 6)
Claims 7—9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Herz, Pond, Fletcher, and AAPA. Ans. 165—72.
Appellant nakedly asserts that the limitations of claims 7—9 and 19 are
not taught by Herz, Pond, Fletcher, and AAPA. App. Br. 631. This
argument is unavailing because this argument fails to point out any specific
errors in the Examiner’s findings.
Appellant also contends that one skilled in the art would have no
reason to apply the teachings in the AAPA to the other prior art systems. Id.
at 632. Yet, the Examiner provides a reason, including applying a known
technique to a known device ready for improvement, such as to improve the
prior art system by providing a verification hierarchy for management and
other parties. See Ans. 170 (citing AAPA 4:50-52); see also Ans. 169—70
(concerning Herz and Pond teaching a second data set).
Appellant also repeats the same or similar arguments for independent
claim 7 that were presented for independent claim 1. See App. Br. 632—38.
Moreover, the AAPA need not overcome any alleged deficiency for the
50
Appeal 2016-000249
Control 96/000,014
Patent 6,694,433 B1
reasons already discussed related to Herz, Pond, and Fletcher. See App. Br.
638.
As for claims 8, 9, and 19, Appellant repeats argument previously
presented for claims 7 and 17. App. Br. 640, 642, 644.
Lastly, we have considered any remaining arguments and are not
persuaded. We refer and agree with the Examiner’s determinations in this
regard.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 7—9 and 19 as being
unpatentable over Herz, Pond, Fletcher, and AAPA.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we affirm the above-discussed rejections of
claims 1—25 and 29—32.
V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
51