Ex Parte Dheap et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 201511779929 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte VIJAY DHEAP, JOEL ALAN FARRELL, and DAVID PRESTON SINK ____________________ Appeal 2012-010457 Application 11/779,929 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-010457 Application 11/779,929 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 9, 11, and 18–23. Claims 2, 6–8, 10, and 12–17 have been canceled. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention The present invention relates generally to the field of Web-based applications for controlling access to private data used in web-based applications, such as mashups and software-as-a-service (SaaS) applications. Spec., para. 1. Exemplary Claims Exemplary claims 1, 11, and 18 under appeal read as follows: 1. A method comprising: responsive to a request for a web-based mashup application, determining that the web-based mash-up application comprises at least one place holder for private data; requesting a subscription to a data source of the private data responsive to said determining that the web-based mashup application comprises at least one place holder for private data; subscribing to the data source of the private data, wherein the subscription has a termination point and the private data has been converted into a content syndication format in accordance with the web-based mashup application; and; supplying the web-based mashup application to the requestor until the termination point for the subscription is reached. 11. A system for providing a web-based mashup application with private data, which comprises: Appeal 2012-010457 Application 11/779,929 3 a processor; a computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions executable to, responsive to a request for a web-based mashup application, determining that the web-based mash-up application comprises at least one place holder for private data; requesting a subscription to a data source of the private data responsive to said determining that the web-based mashup application comprises at least one place holder for private data; subscribing to the data source of the private data, wherein the subscription has a termination point and the private data has been converted into a content syndication format in accordance with the web-based mashup application; and; supplying the web-based mashup application to the requestor until the termination point for the subscription is reached. 18. An article of manufacture for providing content and services with private data, which comprises: a computer readable storage medium having computer readable code stored thereon, said computer readable code comprising instructions executable to: responsive to a request for access to private data for a web-based mashup application, converting the private data into a private data source in a syndication format for the web-based mashup application; generate a termination point for subscribing to the private data source; provide subscription information for the private data source to a mash-up server that requested the access to the private data for the web-based mashup application; and terminate the subscription to the private data source by the web-based mashup application when the termination point is reached. Appeal 2012-010457 Application 11/779,929 4 Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yruski (US 2007/0130012 A1, pub. June 7, 2007) and Welsh (US 2008/0051989 A1, pub. Feb. 28, 2008). Ans. 4–6. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–5, 9, 11, and 20–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yruski, Welsh, and Wu (US 2002/0120864 A1, pub. Aug. 29, 2002). Ans. 6–13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We note that the Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Yruski, Welsh, and Wu and has provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various parts of the references for teaching the feature disputed in Appellants’ contentions (Ans. 15–18). We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. The essence of Appellants’ arguments is that there is “insufficient motivation to combine teachings of the references” (App. Br. 9), and “Examiner improperly splinters the claim in order to reject individual clauses with combinations of the references that lack reason or utility” (Reply Br. 3). Appellants also contend “the Examiner attempts to fill in the Appeal 2012-010457 Application 11/779,929 5 gaping holes of his rejections with citation to a different part of Yruski.” Reply Br. 2. Appellants repeatedly attack one or the other of the references individually for lack of a teaching, when in fact the Examiner has relied on one of the other references (or the combination of references) for that teaching. Appellants point out certain deficiencies in each reference rather than challenging the conclusion based upon their combined teachings. The fact that neither reference individually discloses or suggests a particular limitation of the claimed method does not rebut the obviousness conclusion reached by the Examiner based upon the combined teachings of those references. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Additionally, we note the Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Yruski, Welsh, and Wu and has properly equated the features disclosed in the references with the disputed features in independent claims 1, 11, and 18. In response to each of the arguments raised by Appellants, the Examiner has presented detailed findings and responses (Ans. 5–7). We agree with these findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own. Regarding Appellants’ contention challenging the propriety of the rejection and whether the proposed combination teaches or suggests all the claimed features, we find that the Examiner has articulated how the claimed features are met by the reference teachings with a rational underpinning to combine Yruski, Welsh, and Wu. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appeal 2012-010457 Application 11/779,929 6 In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the inventions recited in claims 1, 11, and 18, and claims 3–5, 9, and 19–23, not separately argued, have not been shown to be patentably distinguishable from the combined teachings of the applied prior art. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–5, 9, 11, and 18–23 are affirmed. 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 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation