Ex Parte Herbach

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2017

13028937 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2017)

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.
13/028,937 02/16/2011 Jonathan Herbach 58083/396128 (B1296) 9725
72058 7590 05/31/2017
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
HOANG, SON T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN HERBACH
Appeal 2016-003069
Application 13/028,9371
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6—12, 14, 15, and 21—25.
(Appeal Br. 1.) Claims 2, 5, 13, 16—20 are cancelled. {Id. at 14—17.) We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a first device providing access to
content to a content requester. A context request is received at the first
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Adobe Systems
Incorporated. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-003069
Application 13/028,937
device, requesting access to the piece of content. Information about the
content requester is also received, and a requester-specific request requesting
additional information from the context requester is sent. The additional
information is received at the first device, and access is provided to the
content based at least on the additional information. (Abstract.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with certain disputed limitations italicized
for emphasis, is exemplary:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a first computer device, a content request for
accessing a piece of content by a content requester, the content
request identifying the piece of content and information about
the content requester who is requesting access to the piece of
content, wherein the content includes access requirements and
access to the piece of content is only granted if an access
requirement profile of the content requester satisfies the access
requirements;
determining, at the first computer device, based on
information already known about the content requester that
there is insufficient information in the access requirement
profile of the content requester to satisfy the access
requirements;
sending from the first computer device a requester-
specific information request requesting additional information
from the content requester to allow determination of the access
rights of the content requester, wherein the additional
information is based on identifying information missing with
respect to the access requirements',
receiving the additional information at the first computer
device from the content requester and about the content
requester;
developing the access requirements profile based at least
in part on the additional information to allow determination of
2
Appeal 2016-003069
Application 13/028,937
the access rights of the content requester based on the access
requirements', and
selectively, at the first computer device, providing access
to a particular version of the piece of content, wherein the
particular version is determined based at least in part on the
access rights of the content requester based on the access
requirements profile and the access requirements, and the
particular version is a previously generated document.
Rejections
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
Claims 1,3,4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Robert (US 2010/0043077 Al; pub.
Feb. 18, 2010), Short et al. (US 2006/0239254 Al; pub. Oct. 26, 2006)
(“Short”), and Friesenhahn et al. (US 2007/0260648 Al; pub. Nov. 8, 2007)
(“Friesenhahn”). (Final Action 3—7).
Claims 6, 8, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Robert, Short, Friesenhahn, and Piliouras (US
2009/0055915 Al; pub. Feb. 26, 2009). (Final Action 7-8).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Robert, Short, Friesenhahn, and Lindeman et al. (US
2012/0129503 Al; pub. May 24, 2012) (“Lindeman”). (Final Action 8—9).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Robert, Short, and Lindeman. (Final Action 9—12).
Issues
Appellant raises the following issues:
(A) Did the Examiner err in finding that Robert teaches or suggests
“sending from the first computer device a requester-specific information
request requesting additional information from the content requester to allow
3
Appeal 2016-003069
Application 13/028,937
determination of the access rights of the content requester, wherein the
additional information is based on identifying information missing with
respect to the access requirements” as recited in claim 1?
(B) Did the Examiner err in finding that Short teaches or suggests
“developing the access requirements profile based at least in part on the
additional information to allow determination of the access rights of the
content requester based on the access requirements;” as recited in claim 1?
(C) Did the Examiner err in finding that Friesenhahn teaches or
suggests “selectively, at the first computer device, providing access to a
particular version of the piece of content, wherein the particular version is
determined based at least in part on the access rights of the content
requester,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
(A) “sending from the first computer device a requester-specific
information request requesting additional information from the
content requester to allow determination of the access rights of
the content requester, wherein the additional information is
based on identifying information missing with respect to the
access requirements ”
The Examiner finds that Robert teaches the disputed limitation of
claim 1 concerning “sending ... a requester-specific information request”
(hereinafter “the sending limitation”), mapping this limitation to Robert’s
teaching of a request for a username and a password from a user, after the
verification that a device ID is valid. (Final Action 3^4 (citing Robert
143).) Appellant argues that:
Nothing in [the cited Robert] disclosure suggests that the
additional credential requested in Robert is based on “identifying
information missing with respect to the access requirements,” as
the claims require. Robert says nothing about why the additional
4
Appeal 2016-003069
Application 13/028,937
credential is requested and thus fails to suggest doing so based
on identifying information that is missing.
(Appeal Br. 8.) Appellant further argues that Robert’s disclosure provides
limited access to a document even when no further information is provided,
and that therefore it does not teach or suggest the additional information in
Robert is “missing” with respect to access requirements, as in the sending
limitation. (Reply Br. 2—3.)
We note that while Appellant argues Robert does not address “why
the additional credential is requested” (Appeal Br. 8), the claim language
does not require the additional information request is performed for a
specific reason, but rather it is a request for information “based on
identifying information missing with respect to the access requirements.”
Robert teaches after verifying a device ID, the authorization module may
request additional credentials, and that different levels of access to content
are provided based on the levels of license metadata and credentials
presented. (Robert 143.) We agree with the Examiner that Robert teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation of requesting additional information used
to determine access requirements, with the username and password being
used to determine a level of access. (Final Action 4—5; Answer 4.)
With respect to Appellant’s argument that in Robert, some access is
provided even without the provision of additional information (Reply Br. 2—
3), we do not find that this contradicts the sending limitation which provides
that the additional information is based on “identifying information missing
with respect to access requirements” (Claim 1). The provision of some
limited access without such additional information is not excluded from the
claim, and Robert clearly notes that the level of access is based on
5
Appeal 2016-003069
Application 13/028,937
verification of user name and password information by the authorization
module. (Robert 143.)
Having considered Appellant’s arguments regarding the sending
limitation of claim 1, we are not convinced of error in the Examiner’s
findings.
(B) “developing the access requirements profile based at least
in part on the additional information to allow determination of
the access rights of the content requester based on the access
requirements ”
The Examiner finds that Short discloses claim l’s disputed limitation
regarding “developing the access requirements profile ...” (hereinafter “the
developing limitation”) in Short’s teaching or suggestion of a login page and
payment/billing information entry used for access authorization. (Final
Action 5, citing Short || 22, 50.)
Appellant argues that Short’s teaching or suggestion of a user profile
based on login page and payment information “does not suggest developing
the access requirements profile based on the additional information received
in response to sending a requester-specific information request based on
identifying missing access requirement information.'1'’ (Appeal Br. 10
(emphasis added), see also Reply Br. 4—5.) This argument is not persuasive
because it is an individual attack against Short based on Short’s purported
deficiencies with respect to teachings or suggestions relating to a different
limitation.
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
(In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). The Examiner has found the claim elements
6
Appeal 2016-003069
Application 13/028,937
regarding the additional information and the requester-specific information
request to be taught by Robert (Final Action 3 4); so when Appellant argues
that Short is deficient with respect to these elements, Appellant does not
address the combination as proposed by the Examiner. Appellant then
merely adds that “[n]one of the other cited references remedy” the purported
deficiency and that “the combination of the references” does not teach the
features of the claim (Appeal Br. 11); these arguments are conclusory and
not persuasive. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
the findings or conclusions with respect to the developing limitation.
(C) “selectively, at the first computer device, providing access
to a particular version of the piece of content, wherein the
particular version is determined based at least in part on the
access rights of the content requester ”
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Friesenhahn discloses
access levels pertaining to versions of a document as recited in claim 1, that
“Friesenhahn’s disclosure does not relate to different document versions,”
and Friesenhahn instead teaches “each user attempting to access a document
would receive the most up to date version of the document appropriate for
that user, based on the permissions of the user.” (Appeal Br. 12.)
However, as the Examiner finds and Appellant acknowledges,
“Friesenhahn teaches a system for providing different versions of a
document to different users, depending on each user’s access privileges.”
{Id. at 11.) Friesenhahn teaches that “a user accessing the document
through this unified document access point will receive the most recent
version of the document which [the user] is allowed to view.” (Friesenhahn
| 53.) We agree with the Examiner (Final Action 5—6; Answer 7—8) that
Friesenhahn teaches access to particular versions as recited in the claim and
7
Appeal 2016-003069
Application 13/028,937
are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions with
respect to this claim limitation.
Conclusion
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments of error in the
Examiner’s findings or conclusions. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, and of independent claims 12 and
252, and dependent claims 3, 4, 6—11, 14, 15, and 21—24, argued on the same
basis. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,3,4, 6—12, 14,
15, and 21—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
2 While Appellant presents each argument as applying to all independent
claims, we note that claim 25 does not include limitations relating to
versions of a document and was not rejected based on a combination
including Friesenhahn (Final Action 9—12), and therefore our decision
regarding claim 25 is not based on our findings and conclusions in section C
of this opinion.
8