Ex Parte Burckart et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201613416092 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/416,092 03/09/2012 84986 7590 06/02/2016 GRASSOPLLC 1818 LIBRARY STREET, SUITE 500 RESTON, VA 20190 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Erik John Burckart 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. RSW920100049US2 1065 EXAMINER ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2154 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): admin@grassoip.com vromme@grassoip.com fgrasso@grassoip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIK JOHN BURCKART, CURTISS JAMES HOWARD, ANDREW IVORY, and AARON KYLE SHOOK Appeal2014-004563 Application 13/416,092 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 9--16 and 21-28, which constitute all claims pending in the application. (Final Act. 1, App. Br. 20.) Claims 1-8 and 17-20 have been canceled. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2014-004563 Application 13/416,092 fNVENTION Appellants' disclosed invention relates to the population, and concealment of user data in multiuser input environments. (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 9 is exemplary and reads as follows: 9. A method comprising: displaying a multi-user form to a first user, the multi-user form having a plurality of fields, some of the fields having a first confidentiality designation and some of the fields having a second confidentiality designation; receiving population data for one or more fields from a first user; populating one or more fields using the received first user population data; determining if a populated field has the first confidentiality designation or a different confidentiality designation; based on the determination, displaying fields, with population data from the first user, to a second user after determining, if the second user has authority to access populated fields having the determined confidentiality designation; validating one or more security features of the form prior to submission of the form; and providing a real-time alert flag on the form visible to a user that the user is seeking to improperly populate a field of the multiuser form. 2 Appeal2014-004563 Application 13/416,092 REFERENCES The Examiner cites the following prior art references: Dziejma US 2005/028084 Al Feb.3,2005 Levas et al. US 2005/0210263 Al Sept. 23, 2005 Johnson US 2010/0131584 Al May 27, 2010 REJECTIONS Claims 9-16 and 21-28 stand provisionally rejected for nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-8 and 17-20 of Application Serial No. 12/820,051 ("'051 application"). (Final Act. 8.) Claims 9-16, 21, and 24--26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Levas and Dziejma. (Final Act. 19- 33.) Claims 22, 23, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Levas, Dziejma, and Johnson. (Final Act. 33-37.) Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Levas. (Final Act. 14--18.) ANALYSIS Provisional Obviousness Type Double Patenting Rejection In the Final Action, the Examiner provisionally rejects claims 9-16 and 21-28 for obviousness-type double patenting and sets forth with specificity his basis for this rejection. (Final Act. 7-14.) Appellants do not address this rejection in their Appeal Brief, but argue, in their Reply Brief, 3 Appeal2014-004563 Application 13/416,092 that it is not ripe for appeal. (Ans. 4; Reply Br. 15.) Appellants further argue an amendment to '051 claim 1 renders the Examiner's obviousness- type-double-patenting analysis outdated. (Reply Br. 15.) We are not persuaded. Provisional rejections, like all other rejections, are ripe for appeal when an applicant's claims have been twice rejected. In re Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 558 (CCPA 1966); 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(a). In addition, although a provisional rejection "might be obviated by future events," Appellants have not presented any arguments or evidence setting forth how the cited amendment to '051 claim 1 obviates the Examiner's rejection. Wetterau, 356 F.2d at 558; Reply Br. 15. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the provisional obviousness-type-double-patenting rejection. 1 As noted above, this provisional rejection could be obviated by future events. Wetterau, 356 F.2d at 558. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 9, 11, 13-15, 21, 24, and 25 Appellants argue that Levas fails to teach or suggest the determining limitation of independent claim 9 (i.e., "determining if a populated field has the first confidentiality designation or a different confidentiality designation") because Levas controls initial access to, and prevents unauthorized completion of, fields, rather than determining the confidentiality designation of an already populated field as required by the claim. (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 4.) We are not persuaded. As the Examiner correctly finds, Levas discloses managing viewing rights to mask 1 The Board has the flexibility to reach or not reach provisional obviousness- type double patenting rejections. See Ex parte Jerg, Appeal 2011-000044, 2012 WL 1375142 at *3 (BPAI 2012) (informative); Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). 4 Appeal2014-004563 Application 13/416,092 fields contain sensitive information that should not be viewed. (Ans. 6-7, Levas i-f 349.) "This enables sensitive information such as credit card or social security numbers to remain confidential even as the form is processed by individuals not authorized to view this information." (Ans. 6, quoting Levas i-f 349, emphasis omitted.) In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that Levas merely discloses keeping data, rather than fields, confidential. (Reply Br. 4.) The cited paragraph in Levas, however, discloses managing "viewing rights at ... field-levels." (Levas i-f 349.) Appellants further argue Levas fails to teach or suggest the displaying-fields limitation of claim 9 because Levas fails to teach or suggest claim 9's determining limitation. (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 5.) As discussed above, however, we are not persuaded that Levas fails to teach or suggest the determining limitation. Appellants further argue Dziejma fails to teach or suggest the validating limitation of claim 9 ("validating one or more security features of the form prior to [the] submission of the form"). (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 5---6.) This argument, however, is not directed to the bases of the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner finds that the combination of Levas and Dziejma teach or suggest the validating limitation. (Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 8-9.) Therefore, Appellants cannot attack Dziejma individually to rebut this rejection. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in combining Levas and Dziejma because the combination would change the principle in operation of Levas. (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 6-8.) Appellants contend the principle in operation of Levas is to have back-end servers that do not send forms to clients, whereas, in Dziejma, clients download forms. (App. Br. 8-9; 5 Appeal2014-004563 Application 13/416,092 Reply Br. 6-8.) Appellants further argue Levas's disclosures regarding backend servers teach away from its combination with Dziejma. (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 6-8.) Both arguments, however, are directed to a bodily combination of Levas and Dziejma, not the combination of teachings set forth by the Examiner. In particular, the Examiner combines Dziejma's teaching of validating information prior to the submission of a form with Leva's teaching of validating security features in forms. (Final Act. 5-8, 23-24; Ans. 8-9.) Appellants have not set forth any persuasive arguments or evidence showing that these combined teachings would change Levas' s principle of operation or that Levas' s disclosures regarding back end servers criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the Examiner's combination or the claimed invention. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants further argue that the Examiner uses impermissible hindsight in rejecting claim 9 because, in combining Levas and Dziejma, the Examiner finds that the references themselves provide the motivation for the combination. (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 14--15.) Appellants contend that if the references provided such motivation then each would disclose the elements it individually is lacking. (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 14--15.) We are not persuaded. References can suggest what they do not disclose. Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1332. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 9 and of claims 11, 13-15, 21, 24, and 25, not separately argued. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 10 and Anticipation Rejection of Claim 28 Appellants argue Levas does not teach or suggest the limitation of "using session information from the first user and session information from 6 Appeal2014-004563 Application 13/416,092 the second user to identify peers in a group necessary to complete form information" as recited in claims 10 and 28. (App. Br. 4--6; Reply Br. 1--4.) For this limitation, the Examiner relies on Levas' s building and routing of electronic forms, methods for distributing workload, and support for collaboration. (Ans. 5---6.) The Examiner also finds Levas uses session information and supports informal collaboration among users while preserving data security, status reporting and audit facilities. (Id.) The Examiner further finds Levas discloses different types of collaboration and specifies that collaboration indicates that more than one user can interact with the form. (Id.) We agree with Appellants, however, that these findings do not provide a sufficient rationale for rejecting claims 10 and 28. Mere collaboration and routing does not make teach or make obvious the identification of peers in a group necessary to complete a form. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 10 or the anticipation rejection of claim 28. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 12 Appellants argue that the Examiner has not identified any passages in Levas that teach or suggest a querying session data as recited by claim 12 because the cited passages in Levas do not use the word "query." (App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 9.) Levas, however, does not need to describe the recited query ipsissimis verbis. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As the Examiner correctly finds, the cited passages in Levas disclose 7 Appeal2014-004563 Application 13/416,092 querying session data without using the word "query." (Final Act. 27; Ans. 11.) Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 12. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 16 Appellants argue that Levas fails to disclose the limitation of "wherein the submission and the population of fields occurs in real-time, with the first user and the second user populating fields during a joint session." (App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 10-11.) For this limitation, the Examiner cites the disclosure in Levas of real time status reporting that allows users involved in a particular process to be aware of the status of a form. (Final Act. 28-29; Ans. 12.) The Examiner also cites Levas's support for collaboration disclosed in paragraphs 690 through 695 of the reference. (Final Act. 28- 29; Ans. 12.) Appellants argue, however, that the cited disclosures only support collaboration with sequential actions and would not support a joint session with real-time population of fields. (App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 10- 11.) We agree with Appellants. For example, paragraph 692 of Levas describes copying a form for another user. (Levas i-f 692.) Paragraphs 693 and 694, respectively, describe sending a form to another user for editing and review. (Id. at i-fi-1693, 694.) Paragraph 695 describes sending a blank form to another user. (Id. at i-fi-1695.) None of these actions appears to be directed to a joint session with real-time population of fields. And, in response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner does not explain how, given Levas' s apparent limited support for collaboration, a joint session with real-time population of fields would be suggested. (Ans. 12.) Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 16. 8 Appeal2014-004563 Application 13/416,092 Obviousness Rejection of Claim 22 Appellants do not argue that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the element added by claim 22 to base claim 9. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 22 for the reasons discussed above for claim 9. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 23 and 27 Appellants argue that Johnson does not teach or suggest the limitation in claim 23 of "wherein the authority of the second user changes based on the amount of time since the second user has logged on" or the limitation in claim 2 7 of "wherein the authority of the second user expires in a certain amount of time." (App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 12-13.) For both limitations, the Examiner cites Johnson's disclosure of setting cookie data evidence with an expiration period for logon data. (Ans. 13.) The Examiner finds this cookie data prevents a user from having to reenter logon name and password every time the user accesses members' area 2500. (Id.) Appellants argue that this cookie data does not teach or suggest changing the authority of a user based on the amount of time the user has logged on and do not concern the authority of the second user. (App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 12-13.) We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, disclosing an expiration period after which a user is required to reenter logon name and password to access a members' area discloses changing the authorization of the user after a period of time. Before the period expires, the user can access members' data without logging on. After the period expires, the user no longer has that authority. Second, the Examiner relies on Levas, not Johnson, for the disclosure of the second user. (Final Act. 21-22.) 9 Appeal2014-004563 Application 13/416,092 Appellants also argue that Johnson is not analogous art. (App. Br. 3- 4; Reply Br. 1.) The Examiner finds Johnson is related to processing data on a computing device and being able to modify/update the data based on specific information provided to the system/device and it allows authorized access to data based on specific set parameters. (Ans. 4--5.) Appellants argue that the Examiner's finding fails to establish that Johnson is either in the same field of Appellants' endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem to which Appellants were concerned and therefore fails to establish that Johnson is analogous art. (Reply Br. 1.) We are not persuaded by this argument. In the Specification, Appellants address the problem of processing data on a computing device and modifying and updating the data based on information presented to the device while allowing authorized access to data based on specific set parameters. (Spec. 1-7, Figs. 1-3B.) Therefore, the Examiner's finding, the correctness of which is not challenged, establishes that Johnson is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the Appellants and is thus analogous art. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 23 and 27. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 26 Appellants argue that Levas does not teach or suggest the limitation of "indicating with a flag that one or more form fields has been concealed and whether or not the concealed field remains to be populated." (App. Br. 12- 13.) Appellants argue that Levas is silent on whether its field is concealed and does not use a flag. In the Answer, the Examiner sets forth his basis for finding otherwise. (Ans. 14--15.) On Reply, Appellants do not address the Examiner's specific findings or provide persuasive arguments or evidence 10 Appeal2014-004563 Application 13/416,092 rebutting them. (Reply Br. 12-13.) Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 26. DECISION We affirm the provisional rejection of claims 9-16 and 21-28 for obviousness type double patenting. We affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 9, 11-15, and 21-27. We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 10 and 16. We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claim 28. Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(l). 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 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation