Ex Parte Dweck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

10952333 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
10/952,333
132787 7590
Docket Clerk-GOLD
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
09/28/2004 Jay S. Dweck
08/10/2016
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.
GOLDll-00211 9509
EXAMINER
DINH, MINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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):
john.maxin@gs.com
patents@munckwilson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAYS. DWECK, MARY D. BYRON, and
BHA VESH R. PATEL
Appeal2015-002322
Application 10/952,333
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 17-20, 22, 29, and 30, which are all of the
claims pending in this application. Claims 6-16 and 23-28 are withdrawn,
and claim 21 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Goldman, Sachs & Co. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002322
Application 10/952,333
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' described and claimed invention relates generally to
systems and methods to secure restricted information. Spec. 1 :7-8.2
Claim 17 is illustrative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitation emphasized):
17. A processor-implemented method to secure information
compnsmg:
verifying via a processor a user request received from a
user based on (i) user information, (ii) a unique identifier
associated with a workstation, and (iii) a request authentication
procedure, wherein the request authentication procedure
includes verifying that the unique identifier associated with the
workstation is valid and is associated with the user information;
if the user request is verified, arranging for an application
to be executed at a secure application server within a secure
network and for information to be exchanged between the
secure application server and the workstation through a firewall
associated with the secure network, wherein the workstation is
outside the secure network;
determining, through a two-tier access verification
defined by a hierarchical file structure and at least one of (i) a
role of the user in a deal and (ii) deal information, whether the
user is allowed to access a file stored at a secure file server
within the secure network; and
if the user is allowed to access the file based on the two-
tier access verification process, arranging for information
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Feb. 13, 2014 ("Final
Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Sept. 2, 2014 ("App. Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed Nov. 5, 2014 ("Ans."); and, the original
Specification filed Sept. 28, 2004 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2015-002322
Application 10/952,333
associated with the file, to be provided to the application
executing at the secure application server.
App. Br. 14--15 (Claims App.).
Re} ections on Appeal3
Claims 1-5, 17-20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mitra (US 7,447,801 B2; issued Nov. 4, 2008),
Bennett et al. (US 7,370,011 B2; issued May 6, 2008) ("Bennett"), and
Hibbert et al. (US 2008/0097898 Al; published Apr. 24, 2008) ("Hibbert").
Final Act. 4--7.
Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mitra, Bennett, and Hibbert as applied to claims 1 and 1 7,
and further in view of Steiner et al. (Jennifer G. Steiner, Clifford Neuman &
Jeffrey I. Schiller, Kerberos: An Authentication Service for Open Network
Systems, Mar. 30, 1988) ("Steiner"). Final Act. 7-8.
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by the Briefs is whether Hibbert teaches
or suggests "determining, through a two-tier access verification defined by a
hierarchical file structure ... whether the user is allowed to access a file,"
as recited in claim 17, and as similarly recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-9.
Appellants contend the teaching in paragraph 58 of Hibbert of enforcing
access control at the folder/sub-folder levels cannot be equated to the
3 Although the Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 17-20, 22, 29, and 30 under
35 U.S.C. i-f 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement, that rejection has been withdrawn. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2015-002322
Application 10/952,333
disputed limitation of claim 17. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular,
Appellants argue it cannot because "there is no disclosure [in Hibbert] of a
two-tier access verification," an example of which is provided in the
Specification at page 9, lines 21-25. App. Br. 9. Appellants also argue
equating "two-tier verification" with permissions of a folder and subfolder is
inconsistent with claim 17 as a whole because the claim recites
"determining, through a two-tier access verification ... whether the user is
allowed to access a file," and "[t]he permissions on the lowest level folder
would govern access to the file and hence there would not be a two-tier
verification." Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has
erred. Regarding construction of the phrase "two-tier access verification,"
we note that the phrase is broad, and the claim does not provide any standard
to identify different tiers for access verification. Appellants argue "[ o ]ne
example of a two-tier access verification is given by page 9, 11. 21 -'25 of the
present application." See App. Br. 9. However, this description in the
Specification does not provide a basis to limit or narrow the claim because it
is specifically referred to as only an "example" and, while we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
Considering the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase "two-tier
access verification," we agree with the Examiner's finding that Hibbert's
teaching of "[c]ontrolling access both at the folder level and sub-folder/file
level in a file system having multiple folders meets the limitation of a two-
tier of access verification defined by a hierarchical file structure and at least
4
Appeal2015-002322
Application 10/952,333
one of (i) a role of the user in a deal and (ii) deal information." Ans. 3
(citing Hibbert i-f 58). We also agree with the Examiner's finding that
"[u]sing both user groups and user roles to control access to sub-folders/files
within a folder also meets the limitation of a two-tier of access verification
defined by a hierarchical file structure and at least one of (i) a role of the
user in a deal and (ii) deal information." Id. (citing Hibbert i-f 58).
Regarding Appellants' argument that equating "two-tier verification" with
permissions of a folder and subfolder is inconsistent with claim 1 7 as a
whole, we are not persuaded of Examiner error because requiring permission
to access a sub-folder by first obtaining permission to access the folder is
fully consistent with determining through a two-tier access verification
"whether the user is allowed to access a file" (e.g., the sub-folder).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1, which is argued together with claim 1 7.
See App. Br. 9. We further sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 2-5, 18-20, and 22, which are not argued separately. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In regard to claims 29 and 30, which depend from claims 1 and 17,
respectively, Appellants argue Steiner, which is relied on by the Examiner to
teach the specific limitation of claims 29 and 30, does not remedy the
deficiencies of Mitra, Bennett, and Hibbert with respect to claim 17. See
App. Br. 10. We are not persuaded by this argument, however, because, for
the reasons stated supra, there are no such deficiencies in Hibbert, which
teaches the disputed limitation of claim 17. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 29 and 30.
5
Appeal2015-002322
Application 10/952,333
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 17-20, 22, 29, and
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
6