Ex Parte Bennah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13937800 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
13/937,800 07/09/2013 ALBERT D. BENNAH XRPS920130054US1 9292
81571 7590 03/02/2017
T aw Office Of Tim Rnire
EXAMINER
3839 Bee Cave Road LANIER, BENJAMIN E
Suite 201
West Lake Hills, TX 78746 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
jennifer@boiceip.com
Emily @ BoiceIP.com
Jim@BoiceIP.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LENOVO ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS
(SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD1.
Appeal 2016-006932
Application 13/937,800
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVIN E.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1—4, 7—11, and 14—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
as anticipated by Knijnenburg et al. (US 2014/0082740 Al; Mar. 20, 2014).
Final Act. 4—6.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Knijnenburg and Reus (US 2013/0160072 Al; Jun. 20, 2013). Final
Act. 7.
1 Albert D. Bennah, Gerald A. Price, and John C. Richard are named as
inventors.
Appeal 2016-006932
Application 13/937,800
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Knijnenburg and Chayanam et al. (US 8,136,148 Bl; Mar. 13, 2012).
Final Act. 7—8.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Knijnenburg and Strickland et al. (US 2008/0028435 Al; Jan. 31, 2008).
Final Act. 8.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “sharing sensitive data between
computers.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method of sharing sensitive data, the method
comprising:
storing, within a first device, sensitive data about a user
of the first device;
classifying, by one or more processors, the sensitive data
into different sensitive data tiers;
determining, by one or more processors, which tier level
of sensitive data from the different sensitive data tiers is
appropriate for sharing with a second device, wherein
determining an appropriateness of sharing a particular tier level
of sensitive data is based on a current contextual circumstance
of the user of the first device;
receiving, by one or more processors, an input from the
user, wherein the input defines the current contextual
circumstance according to a current physical environment of the
user and a purpose of the user being in the current physical
environment; and
transmitting sensitive data from an appropriate tier level
to the second device, wherein the appropriate tier level is based
on the current contextual circumstance of the user of the first
device.
2
Appeal 2016-006932
Application 13/937,800
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1^4,7-11, and 14—17 by
Knijnenburg
Claims 1, 4, and 7
The Examiner finds Knijnenburg describes all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 4—5.
Appellant presents the following principal argument:
Knijnenburg does not teach (claim 1) “the current contextual
circumstance according to a current physical environment of the user and a
purpose of the user being in the current physical environment.” See App.
Br. 5—7; see also App. Br. 7 (“the presence of a person at a particular
location (worksite, an area in which there is a high crime rate, etc.) does not
determine the purpose of the person being in that location.”) and Reply Br. 2
(“environments alone do not teach or suggest the purpose of the user being
in those environments.”).
We do not see any error in the contested finding of the Examiner.
The Examiner finds Knijnenburg describes (claim 1) “the current
contextual circumstance according to a current physical environment of the
user and a purpose of the user being in the current physical environment.”
Final Act. 5 (citing Knijnenburg (|| 57, 118)); see also Ans. 2—3.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding as our own.
Knijnenburg (| 57) discloses: “the context 302 can be environmental,
such as work, off-work, vacation, in school, in a conference, in a remote site,
in a new location, high crime rate, etc. The context 302 can be for the
purpose of sharing.” Knijnenburg (| 118) discloses: “The context 302 can
3
Appeal 2016-006932
Application 13/937,800
affect the types of sharing options.” Thus, Knijnenburg discloses (claim 1)
“the current contextual circumstance according to a current physical
environment of the user and a purpose of the user being in the current
physical environment” because environmental context (for example, work)
defines context according to physical environment and purpose.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we find the environment is
sufficient to teach the purpose of the user being in the particular
environment in at least some circumstances (for example, when a person is
at work to work), which meets the claim language.
We, therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 4 and 7, which are not separately argued with particularity.
Claim 2
Claim 2 further recites:
reserving, by one or more processors, a first tier from the
different sensitive data tiers to store financial data about the user
of the first device; and
reserving, by one or more processors, a second tier from
the different sensitive data tiers to store medical data about a non­
user of the first device.
Appellant argues Knijnenburg does not teach the limitations of claim
2. See App. Br. 7—8. In particular, Appellant argues: “[tjhere is no
teaching/suggestion of segregating different types of data into different tiers,
particularly for a user versus a non-user.” App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3.
We do not see any error in the contested finding of the Examiner.
The Examiner finds Knijnenburg describes claim 2’s recitations.
Final Act. 5—6 (citing Knijnenburg (|| 33, 57)); see also Ans. 3^4 (citing
Knijnenburg (| 42).
4
Appeal 2016-006932
Application 13/937,800
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding as our own.
Knijnenburg (| 33) “Personalization can require the user to share
personal information while maintaining a level of comfort for the amount of
privacy the user wants to maintain.” Knijnenburg (| 57) discloses: “the
context 302 can be environmental, such as work, off-work, vacation, in
school, in a conference, in a remote site, in a new location, high crime rate,
etc. The context 302 can be for the purpose of sharing.” Knijnenburg (| 42)
discloses: “The embodiments of the present invention can apply to any type
of information to be shared and the initial sharing options 202 can represent
choices of how much information to share.”
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Knijnenburg discloses (claim 2):
reserving, by one or more processors, a first tier from the
different sensitive data tiers to store financial data about the user
of the first device; and
reserving, by one or more processors, a second tier from
the different sensitive data tiers to store medical data about a non­
user of the first device.
Knijnenburg’s different sharing options for different contexts reasonably
describe first and second tiers from different sensitive data tiers. Further,
regarding, data being “financial data about the user” and data being “medical
data about a non-user,” these merely describes the content of the data in the
tiers. Merely reciting what that data represents constitutes non-functional
descriptive material. In short, no functional relationship exists between the
recited structures and the content of the data.
We, therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
5
Appeal 2016-006932
Application 13/937,800
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 further recites: “the input predefines the
current contextual circumstance according to a future physical environment
of the user and a purpose of the user traveling to the future physical
environment.”
Appellant argues Knijnenburg’s device is currently in an unfamiliar
area, and future environment and purpose are not considered. App. Br. 9;
see also Reply Br. 3^4.
We do not see any error in the contested finding of the Examiner.
The Examiner finds Knijnenburg describes claim 3’s recitations.
Final Act. 6 (citing Knijnenburg 57, 118)); see also Ans. 4—5 (“the
physical locations designated as ‘at work’ and ‘at school’ include the
presumption of a future trip to that physical location. In other words,
individuals will be physically located ‘at work’ or ‘at school’ more than
once.”).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding as our own.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Knijnenburg discloses (claim 3):
“the input predefines the current contextual circumstance according to a
future physical environment of the user and a purpose of the user traveling to
the future physical environment” because, as discussed above when
addressing claim 1, environmental context (for example, work) defines
context according to physical environment and purpose. Further, although
not all physical locations include a presumption of a future trip to the same
location, we find the environment (and purpose) is sufficient to teach a
future physical environment (and purpose) in at least some circumstances
(for example, when a person is at work and reasonably expects to leave work
6
Appeal 2016-006932
Application 13/937,800
and return to work in the future), which meets the claim language. See Ans.
4-5.
We, therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 14^17
Appellant argues: Knijnenburg does not teach the recited (claim 8)
“determining which tier level of sensitive data from the different sensitive
data tiers is appropriate for sharing with a second device, wherein
determining an appropriateness of sharing a particular tier level of sensitive
data is based on a current contextual circumstance of the user of the first
device.” See App Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 3 (“in Knijnenburg it is the
environment of the data recipient (‘a second device’) that determines the
level of data sharing, not the current contextual circumstance of the user of
the data sending ‘first device’ as presently claimed”).
We do not see any error in the contested finding of the Examiner.
The Examiner finds Knijnenburg describes claim 8’s recitations.
Final Act. 4—5 (citing Knijnenburg (|| 57, 118)); see also Ans. 7.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding as our own.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Knijnenburg discloses (claim 8):
“determining which tier level of sensitive data from the different sensitive
data tiers is appropriate for sharing with a second device, wherein
determining an appropriateness of sharing a particular tier level of sensitive
data is based on a current contextual circumstance of the user of the first
device” because Knijnenburg’s sharing based on environmental context (for
example, work) determines appropriateness of sharing, with a second user
7
Appeal 2016-006932
Application 13/937,800
(other device in the work environment), a particular tier level based on
context of the first device, which meets the claim language.
We, therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, as well as
claims 9, 11, and 14—17, which are not separately argued with particularity.
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 depends from claim 8 and further
recites: “the input predefines the current contextual circumstance according
to a future physical environment of the user and a purpose of the user
traveling to the future physical environment.”
Appellant presents the same principal arguments as presented for
claim 3. See App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 for the
same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 3.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5,12, and 18 over Knijnenburg
and Reus
The Examiner finds Knijnenburg and Reus teach all limitations of
claims 5, 12, and 18. Final Act. 7.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 5, 12, and
18. See App. Br. 5—13, Reply Br. 2—5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5,12, and
18.
8
Appeal 2016-006932
Application 13/937,800
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6,13, and 19 over Knijnenburg
and Chayanam
Claim 6 further recites: “inserting, by one or more processors, an
auto-populate applet into the sensitive data from the appropriate tier level,
wherein the auto-populate applet causes the second device to auto-populate a
form within the second device with at least a portion of the sensitive data as
instructed by the auto-populate applet.”
The Examiner finds Chayanam teaches auto-populating form fields
that meets the recitations in claim 6. Final Act. 7—8 (citing Chayanam col.
11,11. 20-44). The Examiner reasons “[i]t would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to have utilized the widget functionality of Chayanam in the
privacy mechanism of Knijnenburg in order to provide more efficient user
interactions discussed in Chayanam.” Final Act. 8 (citing Chayanam col. 11,
11. 36—38). See also Ans. 6—7.
Appellant presents the following principal argument: “[Ojnce the web
server [in Chayanam] authenticates the user, then the web server can retrieve
user-specific data to populate form fields on the web page. However, this
does not teach or suggest planting an applet into the sensitive data itself,
which then causes the auto-population of the form.” App. Br. 11; see also
Reply Br. 4.
We do not see any error in the contested finding of the Examiner. Nor
do we see any error in the Examiner’s reasoning. We concur with the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Chayanam (col. 11,11. 20-44) teaches auto-populating a form at a
device. When this teaching is combined with Knijnenburg’s data sharing
9
Appeal 2016-006932
Application 13/937,800
(Knijnenburg’s data sharing is discussed above), this shared data is used to
auto-populate a form at the receiving device.
In considering the disclosure of a reference, “it is proper to take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
Regarding (claim 6) “inserting an auto-populate applet into the
sensitive data,” an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably
understood Chayanam’s auto-populating a form discloses, to a skilled
artisan, well-known reasonable ways to cause the auto-populating. We
recognize that Chayanam does not explicitly disclose an inserted auto­
population applet. Nonetheless, the lack of specific illustration of this
precise feature does not preclude a finding that a skilled artisan would infer
(Preda, 401 F.2d at 826) Chayanam teaches that auto-population may be
achieved in well-known reasonable ways, including, when combined with
Knijnenburg’s data sharing, via an inserted applet in the shared data. See
Chayanam col. 11,11. 32—36 (“For example, if the Web page 212 comprises
a form with one or more user input fields, then successful authentication of
the user may allow the web server 230 to retrieve the appropriate user data
and automatically populate the form fields.”)
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6, as well as
claims 13 and 19, which are not separately argued with particularity.
10
Appeal 2016-006932
Application 13/937,800
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 20 over Knijnenburg and
Strickland
The Examiner finds Knijnenburg and Strickland teach all limitations
of claim 20. Final Act. 8.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claim 20. See App.
Br. 5-13, Reply Br. 2-5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
11