Ex Parte Dykstra

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2016

13033965 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/033,965 02/24/2011 DARRELL J. DYKSTRA
119741 7590 02/24/2016
Keller Jolley Preece I Adobe
1010 North 500 East, Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
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.
20030.521 9902
EXAMINER
CELANI, NICHOLAS P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2016 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
tkusitor@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARRELL J. DYKSTRA
Appeal2014-000631
Application 13/033,965
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 14--18.
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "to a method and apparatus for correctly
binding form objects to encrypted XML data." Specification 1.
Appeal2014-000631
Application 13/033,965
Representative Claim
1. A computer implemented method for correctly binding
form objects to encrypted XML data, comprising:
examining at least one data description stored in a set of
replacement properties for a set of encrypted XML data, wherein
each data description is associated with an encrypted data
element from the set of encrypted XML data; and
binding form objects to encrypted data elements of the set
of encrypted XML data using the at least one data description,
wherein the binding comprises binding a particular form object
to a corresponding encrypted data element of the set of encrypted
XML data when the particular form object would have bound to
a descendent of an unencrypted version of the corresponding
encrypted data element of the set of encrypted data.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 17, 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Getting All XML Elements,
http://www.roseindia.netixmlldomIDOMElements.shtm, posted June 8,
2007 (last visited 9/27/2012), XivIL Encryption Syntax and Processing
(W3C Recommendation, December 10, 2002),
http://www. w3. org/TRlxmlenc-core/#sec-EncryptionProperties (last visited
10/1/2012), and XForms 1.1, (W3C Recommendation, October 20, 2009),
http://www.w3.org/TRixforms/# idref-resolve-bind (last visited 10/2/2012).
Answer 5-12.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Getting All XML Elements, XML Encryption
Syntax and Processing, XForms 1.1, and Bhargavan (U.S. Patent
Application Publication Number 2005/0268326 Al published December 1,
2005). Answer 12-16.
2
Appeal2014-000631
Application 13/033,965
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 27, 2013), the Answer (mailed
August 7, 2013) and the Final Rejection (mailed February 4, 2013) for the
respective details. We have considered in this decision only those
arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions. 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
Appellant's Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Independent claims 1 and 1 7
Appellant argues the Examiner's belief that the claimed invention
contemplates explicit-binding is erroneous because "it is Appellants' [sic]
belief that implicit binding is explicitly disclosed in the originally filed
specification." Appeal Brief 8. Appellant cites paragraphs 25 and 38 of the
Specification as well as Figure 4 for support in the assertion that the implicit
binding is disclosed in the original filed Specification. Appeal Brief 8.
However, we do not find Appellant's argument persuasive of Examiner error
because the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
The claims do not indicate whether the binding is explicit or implicit.
Further, Appellant is extrapolating subject matter from both the Specification
3
Appeal2014-000631
Application 13/033,965
and the Figures that are not present in the claims. 1 Therefore we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 17.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 18 and 20
Appellant appears to argue dependent claims separately. Appeal Brief
13-18. However, Appellant's arguments center on the improper rejection of
independent claims 1 and 17. Therefore we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 18 and 20 because we do not find the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1and17 erroneous. See Answer
18-25.
Independent Claim 11
Appellant argues claim 11 recites features similar to those in
independent claim 1 and the additional reference cited by the Examiner,
Bhargavan, fails to cure the deficiency of the cited combination. Appeal
Brief 20. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 11
because we do not find the cited combination deficient as Appellant asserts.
Dependent claims 7, 8, 12, and 14-16
Appellant appears to argue dependent claims separately. Appeal Brief
20-25. However, Appellant's arguments center on the improper rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11 and therefore we sustain the Examiner's
1 Although giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation must take
into account any definitions given in the Specification, In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), it is improper to read into the claims
limitations from examples given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
4
Appeal2014-000631
Application 13/033,965
rejection of dependent claims 7, 8, 12 and 14--16 because we do not find the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1and11 erroneous. See Answer
25-27.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-3, 5-12, 14--18
and 20 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)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5