Ex Parte Hwu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2018

13972484 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/972,484 08/21/2013
72058 7590 06/12/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Chung Wu Hwu
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.
58083-871546 (3207US01) 8661
EXAMINER
KUMAR, ANIL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2018 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
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID CHUNG WU HWU and DEJAN MARKOVIC
Appeal 2018-000993
Application 13/972,4841
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 5-25, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies itself, Adobe Systems Incorporated, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-000993
Application 13/972,484
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed "generally to
computer-implemented methods and systems for sharing electronic content
and more particularly relates to location-based sharing of electronic assets
such as documents, files, and other electronic content." Spec. iJ 1.2
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
storing a publication in a data store of a server having a
processor and memory, the publication including a publication
location and a distance restriction, the publication location
comprising a geographic location of a publisher computing
device;
receiving, at the server, from a listener computing device,
an asset association request to access assets stored in the data
store for the publisher computing device;
generating, at the server, an asset-listener association
based on an authorization of the asset association request, the
asset-listener association qualifYing the listener computing
device to access the assets;
receiving, at the server, from the listener computing
device, a request for an asset associated with the publication, the
request identifying the asset and indicating a requesting location
representing a detected, geographic location of the listener
computing device;
2 We refer to the Specification filed Aug. 21, 2013 ("Spec."); Final Office
Action mailed Nov. 17, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed May 23,
2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Sept. 8, 2017 ("Ans.");
and Reply Brief filed Nov. 8, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal 2018-000993
Application 13/972,484
determining, at the server, that the listener computing
device is eligible to access the asset based on the asset-listener
association;
determining, by the server, a distance from the requesting
location of the listener computing device to the publication
location of the publisher computing device is within the distance
restriction; and
in response to determining that the distance is within the
distance restriction and to determining that the listener
computing device is eligible to access the asset, providing the
asset to the listener computing device in response to the request.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Weinman, Jr. US 2002/0055972 Al May 9, 2002
(hereinafter "Weinman")
Haff et al. US 2009/0205026 Al Aug. 13, 2009
(hereinafter "Haff')
Meola US 2011/0173545 Al July 14, 2011
Kwon et al. US 2012/0047208 Al Feb.23,2012
(hereinafter "Kwon")
Moore et al. US 2013/0104251 Al Apr. 25, 2013
(hereinafter "Moore")
Zhang et al. US 2015/0005010 Al Jan. 1, 2015 3
(hereinafter "Zhang")
3 Zhang claims priority to a PCT application filed on Aug. 30, 2011.
3
Appeal 2018-000993
Application 13/972,484
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 13-15, 17-22, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Kwon. Ans. 4.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Zhang, Kwon, and Weinman. Ans. 13.
Claims 10-12 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Zhang, Kwon, and Meola. Ans. 15.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Zhang, Kwon, and Haff. Ans. 17.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Zhang, Kwon, and Moore. Ans. 19.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5-22, and 24
Appellant contends Kwon does not teach "receiving, at the server,
from a listener computing device, an asset association request to access
assets" and "in response to determining that the distance is within the
distance restriction and to determining that the listener computing device is
eligible to access the asset, providing the asset to the listener computing
device in response to the request," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 11-
13; Reply Br. 2-6.
Specifically, Appellant argues Kwon's mobile terminal that sends the
asset association request (e.g., uploads the information and sets specific
location area) is a publisher rather than a listener, as claimed. App. Br. 13.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's finding that Kwon's mobile
terminal requesting an asset, including a distance or location parameter,
4
Appeal 2018-000993
Application 13/972,484
suggests the listener sending an asset allocation request to the server. Ans.
21. As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 6), Kwon discloses "the uploaded
information can be shown only to an SNS site user or a counterpart terminal,
such as a mobile terminal 100 that provides information to the SNS site or
views information, which is located in the specific area." Kwon iJ 148
(emphasis added). In other words, Kwon teaches the mobile terminal 100
both provides information to the SNS site (e.g., acts as the publisher) and
views information (e.g., acts as the listener). Kwon allows the mobile
terminal to view the uploaded information when located in the specific area.
Appellant has not persuasively argued why Kwon's mobile terminal,
viewing information (e.g., acting as a listener), and gaining access to
uploaded information when in a specific area (e.g., requesting to access
assets and being provided the assets based on location information) does not
teach the claimed receiving an asset association request to access assets
from a listener computing device and providing the asset to the listening
computing device in response to determining the distance and access
eligibility.
Appellant further argues Kwon does not teach generating an "asset-
listener association based on the authorization of the asset association
request," as claimed. See Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant argues "mere
disclosure of an association between a client and its assets completely
ignores the recited details of the required authorization features," and Kwon
is silent with regard to an authorization to add a user to a user group. Reply
Br. 4, 6.
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be
5
Appeal 2018-000993
Application 13/972,484
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). There is a presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and
customary meaning. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). An applicant may rebut this presumption, however, by acting as
his own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the specification
with "reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." See In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition,
limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). "[A]lthough the
specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we
have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those
embodiments .... [C]laims may embrace 'different subject matter than is
illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification."' Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (citations
omitted).
Claim 1 recites "receiving, at the server, from a listener computing
device, an asset association request to access assets stored in the data store
for the publisher computing device" and "generating, at the server, an asset-
listener association based on an authorization of the asset association
request, the asset-listener association qualifying the listener computing
device to access the assets" (emphasis added). Claim 1 does not recite
receiving an asset association request to access some but not all assets and
generating an asset-listener association that qualifies the listener to access
some but not all assets. Accordingly, applying the broadest reasonable
construction, claim 1 does not preclude receiving a request to access some or
6
Appeal 2018-000993
Application 13/972,484
all assets and, based on authorizing the request, generating an association for
the listener to access some or all assets. Because Appellant's arguments are
not commensurate with the scope of the claims, they are unpersuasive. See
In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Kwon's mobile terminal accesses the SNS site
based on authorization. Ans. 22 (citing Kwon ii 85). As cited by the
Examiner (Ans. 22), Kwon discloses "mobile terminal 100 may access the
SNS site in response to receiving from the user an ID and a password that
were previously registered with the SNS site" or "using an ID and a
password stored in the mobile terminal 100." Kwon ii 85. In other words,
Kwon teaches the mobile terminal (e.g., acting as both a publisher and a
listener computing device, as noted supra) being granted authorized access
(e.g., using ID and password) to the SNS site (e.g., assets taught by the
uploaded information on the SNS site). Appellant has not persuasively
argued why Kwon's user entering ID and password to gain access to the
uploaded information on the SNS site does not teach the claimed request to
access assets and generation of asset-listener association that qualifies the
listener to access the assets based on authorization.
Appellant further argues, for the first time in the Reply Brief, that the
claim "requires that the asset association request is for multiple assets and
the request is for an asset," and Kwon does not teach association with
multiple assets. Reply Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 6. Appellant's contention in
the Reply Brief is untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2) (2012) ("Any argument
raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief ... will not
be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good
7
Appeal 2018-000993
Application 13/972,484
cause is shown."). Because Appellant has not demonstrated good cause for
raising the argument for the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellant has
waived that untimely argument.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, along with the rejections of commensurate independent claims 8,
17, and 19, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments as discussed
above for claim 1 (App. Br. 14), along with dependent claims 5-7, 9-16, 18,
20-22, and 24, which are not argued separately (id.).
Claim 23
Appellant argues Haff does not teach "storing the asset comprises
storing an encrypted copy of the asset, wherein the encrypted copy is
encrypted with a private key of the publisher computing device," as recited
in claim 23. App. Br. 14-15. Specifically, Appellant argues "Haff uses a
public key for the encryption rather than the claimed 'private key."' App.
Br. 14.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's finding that Raff's control
module using encryption software with public key/private key technology
teaches encrypting a copy "with a private key" as recited in claim. See Ans.
18 (citing Haff,-i 150).
As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 18), Haff discloses "a user may
encrypt the packet containing the files" by "[ u ]sing commercially available
encryption software having 'public key/private key' technology," and that "a
public key code may be used to encrypt files" where the "public key code
... is generated from a private key code." Haff,-i 150 (emphasis added). In
other words, Haff teaches encryption using public key/private key
8
Appeal 2018-000993
Application 13/972,484
technology. Haff also teaches using a public key code to encrypt files, but
that the public key code is generated from a private key code. Appellant has
not persuasively argued why Haffs use of a public key/private key
technology, or Haff s encryption using a public key code that is generated
from a private key code, does not teach the claimed encryption with a private
key.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim
23.
Claim 25
The Examiner finds Zhang' s selecting users from within a virtual
network to whom to direct a notification message teaches "publication
request from the publisher computing device ... identifies a user group,
wherein the asset association request from the listener computing device
identifies the user group," as recited in claim 25. Ans. 24 (citing Zhang
iii! 32, 68).
Appellant argues Zhang does not teach a listener sending a request
identifying the user group. App. Br. 16. Specifically, Appellant contends
Zhang does not teach a recipient identifying the group he or she belongs to
when requesting information, and instead teaches the recipient device
receiving event information "by being identified as one that should be
receiving this information and by being at the proper location." Reply Br. 7.
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument as the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how
Zhang's manager selecting users to be notified of events, and subsequently
notifying those users of events when the users are in proximity of a location,
9
Appeal 2018-000993
Application 13/972,484
teaches "the asset association request from the listener computing device
identifies the user group," as recited in claim 25.
The cited section of Zhang (Ans. 24), discloses "recipient selection
list 419 enables the manager to select one or more other device users that
are to receive the event notification regarding the sales event." Zhang ii 68
(emphasis added). Zhang discloses "a user of device 1 OJ a wishes to post an
event regarding a festival occurring within their immediate area" and
"select[s] one or more other wireless node users from within their virtual
network to direct the notification message to." Zhang ii 32 (emphasis
added). In other words, Zhang teaches a manager selecting other users to
receive a notification, or a user who posts a notification selecting other users
to receive the notification. However, the sections of Zhang cited by the
Examiner do not teach the recipients of the notification sending a request for
the notification that identifies the recipient devices.
Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's finding that
Zhang teaches the disputed limitation is in error because it is not supported
by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761F.2d671, 674
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (Examiner's burden of proving non-patentability is by a
preponderance of the evidence); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967) ("The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the
factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.").
Accordingly, we are constrained on the record before us to reverse the
Examiner's§ 103 rejection of dependent claim 25.
10
Appeal 2018-000993
Application 13/972,484
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1 and 5-24.
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejection
claims 25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11