Ex Parte Jandhyala et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201713413636 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/413,636 03/06/2012 Srinivas Jandhyala AUS920090273US2 6584 75916 7590 IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF) c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC 4521 Copper Mountain Lane Richardson, TX 75082 EXAMINER CERVETTI, DAVID GARCIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2436 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2017 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): dpandy a @ garglaw. com uspto@garglaw.com garglaw @gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SRINIVAS JANDHYALA, ALBEE JHONEY, SRIDHAR MUPPIDI, NATARAJ NAGARATNAM, and ATUL SAXENA Appeal 2016-001361 Application 13/413,6361 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 26—34, 36, 38-42, 44-49, and 51—53. Final Act. 3, 8; Ans. 8—9. Claims 35, 37, 43, and 50 were objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Ans. 8—9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-001361 Application 13/413,636 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to improving the security of data in computer systems, including by utilizing context aware data protections. Spec. 11. Claim 26 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 26. A computer usable program product comprising a computer usable storage device including computer usable code for context aware data protection, the computer usable code comprising: computer usable code for receiving information about an access context in a data processing system; computer usable code for identifying a resource affected by the access context, wherein a context unaware application serves the resource responsive to requests from recipients for the resource; computer usable code for retrieving the resource from the context unaware application; computer usable code for identifying a policy corresponding to the access context; computer usable code for determining a part of the resource to modify according to the policy; computer usable code for modifying the part according to the policy and the access context to form a modified resource, wherein the modifying the resource is performed even when no requests from any recipients are pending for the resource; and computer usable code for saving the modified resource such that the context unaware application serves the modified resource responsive to a second request for the resource. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL (1) The Examiner rejected claims 26—34, 36, and 38—43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nadalin et al. (US 2008/0263225 Al; published Oct. 23, 2008) (hereinafter “Nadalin”). 2 Appeal 2016-001361 Application 13/413,636 (2) The Examiner rejected claims 44-49 and 51—53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Parapudi et al. (US 2002/0124067 Al; published Sept. 5, 2002) (hereinafter “Parapudi”). ISSUES The dispositive issues for this appeal are whether “modifying the resource is performed even when no requests from any recipients are pending for the resource” is disclosed (i) by Nadalin for claim 26 and (ii) by Parapudi for claim 44. ANALYSIS (1) Nadalin Appellants argue Nadalin fails to disclose the disputed limitation as recited in claim 26. See App. Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 2—3. Specifically, Appellants argue the cited portions of Nadalin are inapposite and instead disclose a message (which the Examiner cites as the resource) without disclosing any mechanism to request the message, contrary to the claims. App. Br. 14 (citing Nadalin || 7, 67—73); id. (citing claim 26’s recital that (i) the resource is provided responsive to recipients’ requests for the resource and (ii) the receipt of a second request for the resource); Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue any alleged modifying of the message can occur only when the message is pending from a sender to a receiver, and thus, the resource is modified only when there already is a request. App. Br. 14. The Examiner finds Nadalin discloses the disputed limitation. Ans. 9-10; Final Act. 3^4. Specifically, the Examiner finds Nadalin discloses modifying a message (i.e., the resource) “to be sent to a recipient based on a 3 Appeal 2016-001361 Application 13/413,636 determination of a route to be taken by a message, and selectively protecting the security-sensitive portions of the message according to the determined access rights . . . Ans. 9 (citing Nadalin | 9). The Examiner further finds that there is no pending request from a recipient for the message during the message’s modification because (i) the message is modified in the process of sending it and (ii) the message is being sent to specific recipients. See id. (citing Nadalin || 17, 19, 20-21). We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We find the cited portions of Nadalin fail to disclose that Nadalin’s message is a resource in the context of the claims. See Nadalin || 17, 19, 20-21 (disclosing modifying a message based on to whom it is being sent). According to the claim language, a resource is capable of being requested by a recipient (e.g., “requests from recipients for the resource”). See claim 26 (App. Br. 26). The Examiner finds Nadalin’s message is not being requested by any recipients, but rather is being sent to specific recipients. Ans. 9. This same reasoning (i.e., the message is sent and not requested), however, is contrary to the message being a resource, which can be requested by a recipient, in the context of the overall claim. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26, as well as claims 36 and 38, which similarly recite the disputed limitation. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27—34 and 39-43 which depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 26, 36, or 38. (2) Parupudi Appellants argue Parupudi also fails to disclose the disputed limitation. See App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 3^4. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner cited portions of Parupudi disclose that “the context 4 Appeal 2016-001361 Application 13/413,636 unaware application is modified, not the resource served from the context unaware application,” as required by the claim. App. Br. 21. Appellants also argue the Examiner’s finding relates to whether any requests for the application are pending, rather than for the resource. Id.', see also Reply Br. 3^4. The Examiner finds Parupudi discloses the disputed limitation. See Ans. 11—13. Specifically, the Examiner finds Parupudi discloses modifying applications, such as Outlook being “modified/configured” to print to a home printer “even when no request for the printer is pending or even when no request for Outlook is pending.” Ans. 11. The Examiner finds the applications, thus, “serve[] the modified resource, access to home/office printer or configure email as home/office, even when no request for printer or for emailing are pending.” Id. (citing Parupudi 108—109, 122—127). Based on the record evidence, we are constrained to agree with Appellants that the Examiner errs. We find the cited portions of Parupudi fail to disclose a resource — which claim 44 recites as “being data” — that is modified when no requests from any recipients are pending for the resource. See Parupudi ]Hf 122—127. Rather, the cited portions of Parupudi disclose modifying an application’s settings based on an access context rather than modifying a resource that can be requested by other recipients (e.g., “responsive to a second request for the resource”) —the Examiner also fails to show that the settings are a resource that is modified and can be requested by other recipients. Id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 44, as well as claims 45 49 and 51—53 which depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 44. 5 Appeal 2016-001361 Application 13/413,636 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 26—34, 36, 38 42, 44^49, and 51—53. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation