Ex Parte Collet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

10874596 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JEAN-LUC COLLET, BERNARD DAKAR,
GERARD MARMIGERE, and JOAQUIN PICON
________________

Appeal 2010-009636
Application 10/874,596
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-009636
Application 10/874,596

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, and 8. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 – 18 are canceled.
App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention is directed to a system and a method for securely
transmitting a tag based protocol file comprising proprietary data from a
Web Server to a Client Web Browser. The proprietary data is extracted from
the tag based protocol file, locally stored, and replaced by references or calls
to a data insert function. See Abstract.
Exemplary Claim (Emphasis Added)
1. A method for securely transmitting an original tag based
protocol file comprising proprietary data from a server to a
client device, the method comprising:
identifying the proprietary data within the tag based
protocol file, wherein the proprietary data is delimited by tags;
extracting and storing locally on the server the
proprietary data, wherein the proprietary data is stored in a
table;
inserting at least one reference to the locally stored
proprietary data in the table in the tag based protocol file to
provide a modified tag based protocol file;
inserting at least one script comprising a call to a data
insert function in the modified tag based protocol file,
parameters of the data insert function comprising the at least
one reference to the locally stored proprietary data in the table;
Appeal 2010-009636
Application 10/874,596

3
transmitting the modified tag based protocol file to the
client device using a standard communication protocol;
upon request of the client device, transmitting the locally
stored proprietary data from the table to the client device
according to a secure communication protocol, the request
comprising the at least one reference to the locally stored
proprietary data; and,
inserting the transmitted locally stored proprietary data
into the modified tag based protocol file to recover the original
tag based protocol file.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schreiber (US 7,155,744 B2; Dec. 26, 2006; filed
Dec. 4, 2000), Redlich (US 7,103,915 B2; Sept. 5, 2006; filed July 27,
2001), Masuichi (US 5,905,980; May 18, 1999), and Rutherford
(US 2002/0138621 A1; Sept. 26, 2002). Ans. 3 – 7.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Schreiber,
Redlich, and Masuichi teaches or suggests (1) “wherein the proprietary data
is stored in a table” and (2) “inserting at least one reference to the locally
stored proprietary data in the table in the tag based protocol file to provide a
modified tag based protocol file,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on the combined
teachings and suggestions of Schreiber, which is directed to copyright
protection of digital images transmitted over a network, Redlich, which is
directed to a data security system and method, Masuichi, which is directed to
Appeal 2010-009636
Application 10/874,596

4
a document processing apparatus, and Rutherford, which is directed to a
system and method for displaying remotely stored content on a web page.
See Ans. 3 – 6. In particular, the Examiner finds that the combination of
Schreiber, Redlich, and Masuichi teaches or suggests “proprietary data is
stored in a table.” See id. at 4 – 5 and 7 – 9. Specifically, the Examiner finds
that Schreiber teaches a system for extracting proprietary data, see id. at 7
(citing Schreiber col. 11, ll. 28 – 35), Redlich teaches extracting data and
storing the extracted data, see id. at 8 (citing Redlich col. 15, ll. 10 – 29),
and Masuichi teaches storage of data in a table, see id. (citing Masuichi col.
12, ll. 40 – 48 and fig. 4).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Masuichi’s figure 4
“only shows a list of words and corresponding numbers for the words.” App.
Br. 6. Appellants contend that “this list of words in Masuichi does not teach
or suggest the table for storing proprietary data in claim 1.” Id. We disagree.
Appellants unpersuasively attack Masuichi individually, even though the
Examiner relies on the combined teachings and suggestions of Schreiber,
Redlich, and Masuichi. See Ans. 7 – 8. Furthermore, Masuichi discloses that
its list of words and corresponding numbers comprises words that “are
sorted and arranged in descending order of values of text codes of character
strings of the words.” Masuichi col. 12, ll. 43 – 45; see also Masuichi fig. 4.
We agree with the Examiner that such a list falls within a broad but
reasonable interpretation of a “table.” See Ans. 9. Appellants’ own
Specification illustrates an example of a table for storing proprietary data as
an array called “data” that contains values arranged in the order by which
they are to be retrieved. See Spec. 9, ll. 30 – 31 (accessing the proprietary
data using the JavaScript call “Document.Write(data[n++])”) .
Appeal 2010-009636
Application 10/874,596

5
We further agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of
Schreiber, Redlich, and Masuichi teaches or suggests that the data stored in
the table is “proprietary data” as claimed. Appellants’ arguments do not
persuasively address the Examiner’s reliance on Schreiber and Redlich to
teach or suggest the type of data stored in the table. See Ans. 9. Moreover,
the “proprietary data” is merely non-functional descriptive material that is
generally not entitled to patentable weight. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381,
1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279
(BPAI 2005) (informative) (“nonfunctional descriptive material cannot lend
patentability to an invention that would have otherwise been anticipated by
the prior art”), aff’d, 191 Fed.Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Rule 36); and Ex
parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1275 (BPAI 2005) (informative). Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Schreiber, Redlich, and
Masuichi teaches or suggests “proprietary data is stored in a table,” as
recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4 – 5.
The Examiner further finds that the combination of Schreiber,
Redlich, and Masuichi teaches or suggests “inserting at least one reference
to the locally stored proprietary data in the table in the tag based protocol
file to provide a modified tag based protocol file,” as recited in claim 1. See
id. at 3 (citing Schreiber col. 11, ll. 35 – 38); see also id. at 10. Specifically,
the Examiner finds that the combination of Schreiber, Redlich, and Masuichi
teaches or suggests the “locally stored proprietary data in the table” while
Schreiber, which teaches modifying a tag based protocol with a reference to
substitute data, teaches or suggests inserting at least one reference to the data
in a tag based protocol file. See id. at 10 (citing Schreiber col. 11, ll. 35 –
38).
Appeal 2010-009636
Application 10/874,596

6
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because “the substitute data
of Schreiber is an encryption of the protected image data.” App. Br. 6.
Appellants contend that “[t]here is no encryption or modification to the
locally stored proprietary data in claim 1.”Id. at 6 – 7. However, as the
Examiner points out, claim 1 does not limit the locally stored proprietary
data to unencrypted, unmodified data. See Ans. 11. Thus, a broad, but
reasonable interpretation of the “locally stored proprietary data”
encompasses data that is either encrypted or modified. Furthermore, as
discussed above, the “proprietary data” is non-functional descriptive
material, which is generally not entitled to patentable weight. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Schreiber, Redlich, and
Masuichi teaches or suggests “inserting at least one reference to the locally
stored proprietary data in the table in the tag based protocol file to provide a
modified tag based protocol file,” as recited in claim 1. See id. at 3 and 10.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1, or
in rejecting claims 4, 6, and 8, which Appellants do not argue separately
with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 7.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 6, and 8.
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
bar