Ex Parte Bhamidipaty et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201613597625 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/597,625 08/29/2012 89885 7590 09/28/2016 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC 409 BROAD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15143 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Anuradha Bhamidipaty 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. IN920110023US2(790. l l 7C) 9027 EXAMINER PATEL, HARESH N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2493 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2016 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 APPEAL BOARD Exparte ANURADHA BHAMIDIPATY and ANUBHA VERMA Appeal2016-002703 Application 13/597,625 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-12. App. Br. 5. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (Final Act.) mailed February 26, 2015; (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed July 20, 2015; (3) the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed October 30, 2015; and (4) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed December 30, 2015. Appeal2016-002703 Application 13/597,625 INVENTION Appellants' invention detects non-compliant content in user actions related to communications. Spec. ,-r 2. Non-compliant content includes confidential or sensitive information. See id. ,-r 3. Current methods require a user to look for non-compliant information before sharing data. Id. Appellants' invention analyzes data to be shared and identifies non-compliant content automatically before the data is shared. Id. ,-r 4. Claim 1, reproduced below with our emphasis, is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: responsive to receiving a user selection to share data via an electronic device, analyzing, using a hardware processor, the data to be shared; and automatically identifYing, using a hardware processor, non-compliant content within the data prior to sharing the data, wherein the non-compliant content is identified using a rule set comprising policies and rules for information exchange. The Examiner relies on the follo\'l1ing as evidence of unpatentability: Brock Chakra Mehrotra US 2008/0059426 Al US 2009/0100184 Al US 2009/0094343 Al THE REJECTIONS Mar. 6, 2008 Apr. 16, 2009 Apr. 9, 2009 Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Chakra. Final Act. 2---6. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mehrotra. Final Act. 6-10. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Brock. Final Act. 11-14. 2 Appeal2016-002703 Application 13/597,625 THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER MEHROTRA Contentions The Examiner finds that Mehrotra discloses every limitation of claim 1, including automatically identifying non-compliant content. Final Act. 7. In particular, the Examiner finds that Mehrotra' s instant-messaging server identifies non-compliant content. Id. (citing Mehrotra i-fi-121, 25, 27-29, 32; Figs. 3, 5). Appellants argue that Mehrotra does not "teach anything with regard to non-compliant content." App. Br. 13. Issues Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Mehrotra discloses non-compliant content as recited in claim 1? Analysis We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 1, which calls for, in pertinent part, "non-compliant content." Although the Specification does not express a clear intent to define the term "non-compliant content," the Specification discloses that confidential information is an example of non-compliant content. Spec. i-f 16 ("confidential (non-compliant)"); see also Spec. i13 (discussing confidential and sensitive information). Similarly, Mehrotra discloses a system that looks for confidential information. Mehrotra i128, cited in Final Act. 7. In particular, Mehrotra relates to instant messaging between two users. Id. i128; see also id., Fig. 5, cited in Final Act. 7. The instant messaging server analyzes the user's 3 Appeal2016-002703 Application 13/597,625 messages as they are sent back and forth. Id. if 28, 32. The server in Mehrotra adds a flag to an instant message that includes the word "confidential," for example. Id. Mehrotra's flagged or other selected messages appear in a special instant message window for "sensitive or confidential information .... " Id. if 27 (discussing elements in Figure 3). Because non-compliant content encompasses confidential information and because Mehrotra's process identifies confidential content with a flag added automatically by a server, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Mehrotra does not teach anything regarding non-compliant content and for that matter, identifying non-compliant content. App. Br. 13. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue for the first time that Mehrotra does not teach anything with regard to responsive to receiving a user selection to share data, analyzing the data to be shared, and identifying non-compliant content before sharing the data. Reply Br. 13-14. These new contentions are not in response to an argument presented in the Answer. Thus, to the extent that Appellants now assert that the newly argued features are missing from Mehrotra (Reply Br. 13-14), such arguments are waived as untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Moreover, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive, amounting to quoting the claim and asserting Mehrotra fails to teach claim limitations. See Reply Br. 14. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in rejecting independent claim 1 and claims 2-12 not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 13. 4 Appeal2016-002703 Application 13/597,625 THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER CHAKRA Contentions The Examiner finds that Chakra discloses every limitation of claim 1, including automatically identifying non-compliant content. Final Act. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner finds that Chakra's disallowed terms correspond to non-compliant content. Id. at 3 (citing Chakra i-fi-19, 13, 32). Appellants argue that Chakra identifies disallowed terms, not non-compliant content. App. Br. 13. Issues Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Chakra identifies non-compliant content as recited in claim 1? Analysis Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1, which calls for, in pertinent part, "identifying ... non-compliant content." As discussed above, the Specification does not define non-compliant, but it does explain that confidential or sensitive information are types of non-compliant content. See Spec. i-fi-13, 16. Chakra monitors words typed into an instant messaging client for disallowed terms. Chakra i14. Those disallowed terms include passwords. Id. i-f 18. For example, if the user types a password into the instant message (IM) window, another message is displayed and the user is asked to confirm before sending and sharing the message. See id., Fig. 3, cited in Final Act. 2-3; see also Chakra i-f 18 (explaining Figure 3). Passwords are 5 Appeal2016-002703 Application 13/597,625 one example of sensitive information in Chakra. See Chakra if 9, cited in Final Act. 3. Similarly, sensitive information is a type of non-compliant content discussed in the disclosure. Spec. if 3. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that Examiner erred by finding that Chakra identifies non-compliant content as required in claim 1. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue for the first time that Chakra does not identify non-compliant content responsive to receiving a user selection to share data but rather in real time. Reply Br. 13. These arguments also are not in response to an argument presented in the Answer. Thus, to the extent that Appellants now argue that the newly disputed features are missing from Chakra (Reply Br. 13), such arguments are waived as untimely. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b )(2). For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in rejecting independent claim 1 and claims 2-12 not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 13-14. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER BROCK Appellants argue that Brock automatically identifies non-compliant content that is already shared rather than "prior to sharing" as recited in claim 1. We agree. Upon review, we find no support for the Examiner's position that Brock identifies non-compliant content before sharing. Ans. 6 (citing Brock iii! 4, 20-23, 28, Figs. 1, 2E); Final Act. 11. Brock's automatic process is an alternative to a manual process where people view and approve content. Brock if 4. Brock's system 100 monitors content for non-compliance using a set of rules. Id. if 20; Fig. 1. The content monitoring system 100 searches "monitored content." Id. if 23. 6 Appeal2016-002703 Application 13/597,625 Monitored content may reside on the Internet or other environments. Id. i-f 26. This content is fetched by crawler 112 from these sources and given to digester 114 for analysis. Id. i-f 36. But we find no evidence that crawler 112 prevents content upload or performs the discussed acts before the content is uploaded. Rather, the administrator provides Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) or websites to be monitored. See id. i-f 32. That is, the crawler fetches content already uploaded and existing on the network. Id. i-f 33; see also id. i-f 52 (discussing crawling websites). If the content is determined to be non-compliant (step 280), Brock teaches contacting the user (step 284) or removing the content object (step 288). Id. Fig. 2E. By disclosing that the content is "removed," Brock suggests that the content has already been shared. See id. Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown or provided a sufficient explanation that Brock necessarily identifies non-compliant content before sharing the data as required by claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in rejecting independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-12 for similar reasons. DECISION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-12 under§ 102 over Chakra and Mehrotra, but erred in rejecting claims 1-12 under§ 102 over Brock. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation