Ex Parte Beyda

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 22, 2010

09668039 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 22, 2010)

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.
09/668,039 09/21/2000 William J. Beyda 00P7906US 9089
7590 10/22/2010
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
186 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
REFAI, RAMSEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2010 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 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
___________ 6
7
Ex parte WILLIAM J. BEYDA 8
___________ 9
10
Appeal 2009-007555 11
Application 09/668,039 12
Technology Center 3600 13
___________ 14
15
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and 16
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. 17
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 18
DECISION ON APPEAL1 19

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007555
Application 09/668,039

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 1

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed February 11, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 25,
2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 2, 2008).
William J. Beyda (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 2
(2002) of a final rejection of claims 1-5, 14-18, and 29-38, the only claims 3
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal 4
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 5
The Appellant invented a way of processing electronic messages 6
(Specification 1: Technical Field). 7
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 8
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 9
paragraphing added]. 10
1. An electronic messaging system for filtering electronic 11
messages, comprising[:] 12
[1] a message server 13
operable to receive and transmit electronic messages 14
including electronic mail messages, 15
the message server comprising an access restriction filter 16
comprising 17
a character recognizer 18
configured to translate characters in image 19
components of respective ones of electronic 20
Appeal 2009-007555
Application 09/668,039

3
messages into computer-readable character 1
representations, 2
[2] wherein 3
the access restriction filter is configured 4
to detect an access restriction notice in the 5
respective ones of the electronic messages 6
by comparing 7
the one or more translated computer-8
readable character representations 9
respectively produced by the character 10
recognizer 11
to respective representations of one or more 12
access restriction notices stored in memory, 13
the access restriction filter being additionally configured 14
to respond to the detection of the access restriction 15
notice 16
in accordance with a prescribed transmission 17
policy 18
for handling electronic messages containing 19
the detected access restriction notice. 20
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 21
Fields US 6,704,797 B1 Mar. 9, 2004
Sato US 6,914,691 B1 Jul. 5, 2005
Claims 1-5, 14-18, and 29-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 22
unpatentable over Fields and Sato. 23
ISSUE 24
Does the phrase “access restriction notice” require that the intent for 25
notice as to access restriction be evident? 26
Appeal 2009-007555
Application 09/668,039

4
1
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 2
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 3
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 4
Facts Related to Claim Construction 5
01. The Specification states that “the term ‘access restriction 6
notice’ is intended to refer to any notice restricting access to 7
information associated with the notice.” Specification 4:21-23. 8
Facts Related to the Prior Art 9
Fields 10
02. Fields is directed to distributing image content over a computer 11
network and protecting images with a policy based set of 12
credentials. Fields 1:8-12. 13
03. Fields protects images via a server-based policy that results in 14
the selective distribution of one of multiple versions of an original 15
image. The policy includes a set of one or more rules that each 16
include given criteria. When a request for a web page is received, 17
a given rule in the set is evaluated against client-specific data 18
obtained from the client request. If a condition of the rule is 19
satisfied against the client-specific data, a given restriction may be 20
imposed on the image distribution. Fields 2:37-46. 21
04. Thus, the rules in the policy determine which version, if any, is 22
served in a given page. Thus, for example, a given policy may 23
include a rule that a given image is not distributed from the server 24
Appeal 2009-007555
Application 09/668,039

5
to any referring pages outside of a given domain. Another rule 1
may restrict distribution to a modified version of an image, e.g., a 2
version that is overlaid with a company logo or watermark, to any 3
client machine that is not on a permitted list of IP addresses. 4
Another rule may restrict distribution to a low resolution version 5
of the image to any referring page that is within a given third party 6
domain. Fields 2:38-58. 7
05. With Fields’ policy-based implementation, one may develop an 8
access policy with rules that limit how an image is distributed 9
from the server in response to client-specific data included in 10
server requests received from web clients in the network. The 11
respective access policy may be based on given client-specific 12
access criteria, e.g., the identity of the referring page, the client 13
machine IP address, an ISP identity, a user identifier such as a 14
cookie, or the existence of a user authentication. The client-15
specific access restriction need not be exposed to the requesting 16
clients. Fields 2:59 – 3:3. 17
06. Restricting access to an image begins by establishing a 18
distribution policy at a server. The policy defines at least one rule 19
that defines criteria for permitted distribution of the image. In 20
response to receipt of a request for the image, Fields parses the 21
request to identify specific data pertaining to the requesting client. 22
This data is then compared to the distribution criteria in the rule. A 23
given version of the image is then served as a result of the 24
comparison. The version may have been stored at the server or it 25
Appeal 2009-007555
Application 09/668,039

6
may generate "on-the-fly" as the page is served to the requesting 1
client. Fields 3:4-15. 2
Sato 3
07. Sato is directed to an image processing device. Sato 1:9-10. 4
ANALYSIS 5
Claims 1-5, 14-18, and 29-38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 6
unpatentable over Fields and Sato. 7
Claim 1, and each of the other two independent claims, recites an access 8
restriction filter to detect an access restriction notice in electronic messages. 9
The Examiner found Fields described this. Ans. 3. The Appellant argues 10
that none of Fields’ client specific data constitutes an access restriction 11
notice within the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the term. Appeal Br. 12
10. The Examiner responded: 13
It is unclear what the Appellant has based his meaning of the 14
term on since it is not clearly defined in the Appellant’s 15
specification and it is not a term which has a specific well 16
known definition in the technological arts. Given the broadest 17
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, 18
Fields et al determination of whether an image or page has a 19
distribution policy meets the scope of the claimed limitation. 20
Ans. 7. According the Specification, the phrase is intended to refer to any 21
notice restricting access to information associated with the notice. FF 01. 22
Thus, the limitation refers to any portion in a message that is intended to 23
notify one that access to information is restricted. The dispositive feature is 24
that the notice of intent must be in the message. The Examiner has not made 25
any finding as to where Fields or Sato, describe such a notice of intent in a 26
message. As the Appellant contends at Appeal Br. 10-11, Fields does not 27
Appeal 2009-007555
Application 09/668,039

7
respond to a notice of intent in a message, but rather applies a server’s own 1
criteria for restricting access based on client information. There is no 2
explicit or implicit indication in Fields that such client data would include 3
any notice of restrictive intent. Fields simply examines information about 4
the client and based on that makes a decision as to restriction. FF 02-06. 5
While we agree with the Examiner that the phrase “access restriction notice” 6
is broad, it is definite in that the intent for notice must be evident. 7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 8
Rejecting claims 1-5, 14-18, and 29-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 9
unpatentable over Fields and Sato is in error. 10
DECISION 11
The rejection of claims 1-5, 14-18, and 29-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 12
as unpatentable over Fields and Sato is not sustained. 13
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this 14
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. 15
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 16
17
REVERSED 18
19
20
21
mev 22
23
Address 24
Appeal 2009-007555
Application 09/668,039

8
SIEMENS CORPORATION 1
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 2
186 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH 3
ISELIN NJ 08830 4