Ex Parte Chow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2015

12351193 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2015)

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.
12/351,193 01/09/2009 Stanley Taihai Chow LUTZ 2 00618/803137 8338
48116 7590 04/28/2015
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2015 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
____________

Ex parte STANLEY TAIHAI CHOW and KEVIN MCNAMEE
____________

Appeal 2013-000372
Application 12/351,193
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–20. (App. Br. 6.)
1
We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1
We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”), filed January 9, 2009;
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed May 11, 2012; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) filed September 17, 2012. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed July 17, 2012, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection)
(“Final Act.”) mailed December 20, 2011.
Appeal 2013-000372
Application 12/351,193

2

Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns an apparatus and methods
for enhancing network and data security by providing for selective
transmission of data utilizing a submit control associated with a submit
uniform resource locator (URL) of a recipient to which the data is to be
transmitted, presenting identifying information to the transmitting party
concerning the recipient, and providing a verification control to be activated
by the transmitting party for transmission of the data. (Spec. ¶¶ 1, 12, 13;
Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method of enhancing security in a network-based data
communication, the method including:
a) maintaining at least access to data which a transmitting
user may selectively transmit, wherein a computing device
associated with the transmitting user maintains access to the
data;
b) providing a submit control associated with a submit
uniform resource locator (URL) for a recipient user to which
the data may be selectively transmitted, wherein the computing
device includes the submit control;
c) in response to the transmitting user activating the
submit control, presenting information to the transmitting user
that identifies the recipient user associated with the submit URL
to which the data is about to be sent, wherein the computing
device includes a display device on which the recipient user
information is presented; and
d) in response to the transmitting user activating a
verification control, transmitting the data to the submit URL for
Appeal 2013-000372
Application 12/351,193

3

the recipient user, wherein the computing device includes the
verification control.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sauve (US 7,743,254 B2, issued June 22, 2010 (filed Mar.
23, 2005)) and Kouznetsov (US 7,055,036 B2, issued May 30, 2006).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Sauve and
Kouznetsov collectively would have taught or suggested:
b) providing a submit control associated with a submit
uniform resource locator (URL) for a recipient user to which
the data may be selectively transmitted, wherein the computing
device includes the submit control;
c) in response to the transmitting user activating the
submit control, presenting information to the transmitting user
that identifies the recipient user associated with the submit URL
to which the data is about to be sent, wherein the computing
device includes a display device on which the recipient user
information is presented; and
d) in response to the transmitting user activating a
verification control, transmitting the data to the submit URL for
the recipient user, wherein the computing device includes the
verification control
within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations
of claims 10 and 16?
Appeal 2013-000372
Application 12/351,193

4

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office
Action mailed December 20, 2011, as our own, except as to those findings
that we expressly overturn or set aside in the Analysis that follows.

ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6–14), we find Appellants
provide separate arguments for independent claims 1 (App. Br. 6–9), 10
(App. Br. 9–11), and 16 (App. Br. 11–14), but the arguments for claims 10
and 16 are substantially the same as the arguments made with respect to
claim 1 (App. Br. 9–14). Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative of Appellants’ arguments and grouping with respect to claims
1–20. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) .
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3–5), and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2–
9) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following for
emphasis.
Appellants contend that Sauve and Kouznetsov do not teach the
disputed features of representative claim 1, namely limitations b, c, and d
(supra) — the “submit control” and “submit URL” feature, the “presenting
information” feature, and “verification control” feature. (App. Br. 6–9;
Reply Br. 2–5.) Specifically, Appellants contend, with respect to limitation
b, that the “submit URL in element b) is different from the combination of
Appeal 2013-000372
Application 12/351,193

5

the Sauve submit button and the Kouznetsov ‘I need’ packet identifying an
upload URL.” (App. Br. 7.) Appellants also contend, with respect to
limitation c, that the “recipient user associated with the submit URL in
element c) is different from the combination of the Sauve security
information for a current web page and the Kouznetsov digital certificate in
a response message from a service server.” (App. Br. 8.) Appellants further
contend, with respect to limitation d, that the “cited portions of Kouznetsov
merely disclose the requesting peer generating and broadcasting an ‘I found’
message if the digital certificate in the response communication from the
service server is verified” (App. Br. 8) and the “submit URL in element d) is
different from the combination of the Sauve submit/more buttons and the
Kouznetsov verification of signed certificates from a service server” (App.
Br. 9). We disagree with Appellants’ contentions and reasoning.
Appellants misconstrue the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner
points to explicit disclosures in the prior art that describe the limitations at
issue. For example, the Examiner explains, with respect to the first disputed
limitation (limitation b), that Sauve describes a “submit” button (i.e., a
submit control) (Sauve, col. 3, ll. 42–45; Fig. 1) that transmits data to the
hosting server (recipient), Sauve describes a recipient URL (Sauve, col. 3, ll.
33–48; Figs. 1 and 4, elements 110 and 410), and Kouznetsov describes an
associated upload URL (i.e., recipient URL) (Kouznetsov, col. 5, ll. 57–61;
col. 12, ll. 3–8) that has the same format as Appellants’ submit URL. (Ans.
3–5.) Appellants do not further define the recipient or the submit URL
(either in their Specification or claim 1), and do not persuasively explain
why Sauve in combination with Kouznetsov does not at least suggest a URL
Appeal 2013-000372
Application 12/351,193

6

directing data to a recipient user as broadly but reasonably interpreted by the
Examiner to meet the limitation recited in claim 1.
With respect to the second disputed limitation (limitation c), the
Examiner explains that Sauve displays a certificate summary which is
security information identifying a recipient (Sauve, col. 5, l. 47–col. 6, l. 33;
Figs. 4 and 5) and also describes negotiating an SSL session (Sauve, col. 3,
ll. 26–38). (Ans. 5–7.) The Examiner concludes that Sauve at least suggests
displaying the security information (certificate summary or SSL bar
information) responsive to activation of the submit button. However,
because Sauve does not explicitly describe displaying the security
information responsive to activation of the submit button, the Examiner
explains that Kouznetsov describes providing (displaying) certificate
information for an upload URL to a requesting peer (transmitting user)
responsive to a post. (Kouznetsov, col. 12, ll. 3–26.) (Ans. 6–7.) Again,
Appellants do not persuasively explain why Sauve in combination with
Kouznetsov does not at least suggest displaying certificate information for a
recipient URL (and recipient user associated with the recipient URL) as
broadly but reasonably interpreted by the Examiner to meet the limitation
recited in claim 1.
With respect to the third disputed limitation (limitation d), we note
that Appellants, as with the submit control (supra), do not further define the
verification control either in their Specification or claim 1. We broadly but
reasonably construe (as did the Examiner) the verification control to simply
provide a means to implement a mental verification as occurs in Sauve. (See
Ans. 7–8.)
Appeal 2013-000372
Application 12/351,193

7

The Examiner explains that Sauve describes posting form data to the
hosting server/site (Sauve, col. 3, ll. 42–45) and providing additional buttons
to the user when the certificate summary is displayed (Sauve, col. 6, ll. 30–
33). The Examiner further explains that Kouznetsov describes submitting
data after verification of certificate data (Kouznetsov, col. 12, ll. 42–48, 58–
64). (Ans. 7–8.) The Examiner concludes that Sauve teaches viewing
certificate information, allowing a user to “make an informed decision as to
whether or not he should submit the form data” and that it “would be a
simple step to simply confirm this visual verification process carried out by
the transmitting user by adding a button for the user to . . . confirm[] the
verification.” (Ans. 8.)
We are not persuaded that combining the respective familiar elements
of Sauve and Kouznetsov in the manner proffered by the Examiner would
have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art” at the time of Appellants’ invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
Thus, for all the reasons supra, Appellants do not persuade us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative independent claim
1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative claim 1, independent claims 10 and 16, and dependent claims
2–9, 11–15, and 17–20, not separately argued with particularity (supra).

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2013-000372
Application 12/351,193

8

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20.

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED
tj