Ex Parte Kania et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2017

11616334 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 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.
11/616,334 12/27/2006 LeeAnn L. Kania END920060261US1-IEN106205 2406
26681 7590 02/28/2017
Driggs, Hogg, Daugherty & Del Zoppo Co., L.P.A.
38500 CHARDON ROAD
DEPT. IEN
WILLOUGHBY HILLS, OH 44094
EXAMINER
JOSHI, SURAJM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2017 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):
usptocommunications@driggslaw.com
carole@driggslaw.com
mwheeler @ driggslaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEEANN L. KANIA, JOY L. MANN,
and
ROBERT F. PRYOR
Appeal 2016-001325
Application 11/616,334
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, SHARON FENICK, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 21—26, 28—33, and 35—40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-001325
Application 11/616,334
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “efficiently correlating user
demographic information with file transfer information” (Spec. ]fl).1
Independent claim 21, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
21. A method for managing transfer of a file, the method
comprising the steps of:
a network computer receiving a request, contained in a
URL from a client computer, to download the file, the request
comprising, within a signed string that is signed with a secure
signature parameter, encrypted field values of a file name and a
pointer associated with a user at the client computer, the request
also stating outside of the signed string a name of a requested
file;
in response to the request, the network computer
comparing the file name in the signed string to the name of the
requested file stated outside of the signed string;
if the file name in the signed string matches the name of
the requested file stated outside of the signed string, the network
computer validating the URL and initiating download of the file
to the client computer; and
if the file name in the signed string does not match the
name of the requested file stated outside of the signed string, the
network computer not downloading the file to the client
computer.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 21—23, 26, 28—30, 33, 35—37, and 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Thompson (US
1 We refer throughout this opinion to the Specification with Amendments
filed February 5, 2010.
2
Appeal 2016-001325
Application 11/616,334
2003/0105807 Al; published June 5, 2003) and Niwa (US 2005/0219664
Al; published Oct. 6, 2005).
The Examiner rejected claims 24, 31, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Thompson, Niwa, and Grannan (US
2004/0143652 Al; published July 22, 2004).
The Examiner rejected claims 25, 32, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Thompson, Niwa, Williams (US 2007/0028236
Al; Feb. 1, 2007) and Kan (US 7,171,415 B2; issued Jan. 30, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Claims 21—23, 26, 28—30, 33, 35—37, and 40
Appellants contend the combination of Thompson and Niwa does not
teach or suggest “basing a download decision on matching filenames within
and without the signed string of the (URL) request” as claimed because
“Thompson in view of Niwa teaches an entirely different process involving
different, non-analogous indicia” (App. Br. 8). That is, Appellants contend
Niwa compares hash values calculated from numerical data values
independent of string file name data, rather than comparing and matching
string data filenames from within and without the signed strings as claimed
(App. Br. 9). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans.
12—16; Final Act. 2—6). Particularly, the Examiner finds Thompson
discloses ah the elements recited in claim 21 except for explicitly disclosing
comparing the file name in the signed string to the name of the requested
files outside the signed string, and for this limitation, the Examiner relies on
Niwa (Final Act. 2—3; 4—6). The Examiner also finds Thompson teaches the
3
Appeal 2016-001325
Application 11/616,334
filename is both within a secure parameter (Fig. 3B field 336) and outside
the secure signature (Fig. 3B field 324) and Niwa improves on this by
teaching a “filename (Patient ID) and a secure signed string of filename
(hash value of the filename). Thus in this example, the URL is
http://192.168.1.1/1.2.80.56.99.0.dcm?hashcheck=501', the patient ID,
which is the filename[,] is 1.2.80.56.99.0, and that filename is outside the
secure signed parameter (the hash value 501, which is the hash of the
filename)” (Ans. 13—14). Niwa then compares “a hash value calculated
based on the patient ID or the user ID to the hash value which is part of the
UR” (Ans. 14).
We also agree with the Examiner the term “signed string” is broad and
reads on Niwa’s hash value (id.). The term “signed string” is described in
Appellants’ Specification as containing parameters including a “file name
and a party pointer associated with a user” (Spec. H 5, 6), and further
including a “a ticket parameter ‘Xb.tickef 206, a file name parameter
‘Xe.filename’ 208, and an expiration date parameter ‘Xd.expirationdate’
210,” along with other parameters (Spec. 121) “The parameters
204,206,208,210 are contained within a signed string of parameters, signed
with a secure signature (Spec. 121). The “parameters 204,206,208,210 are
contained within a signed string of parameters, signed with a secure
signature parameter ‘Xz.signature’212” (Spec. 120), “wherein the field
values of the parameters [in the signed string] Xa 204 through the signature
parameter Xz 212 are protected through private key cryptography or other
encryption and security” (Spec. 121 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 14).
Thus, hash values as in Niwa, which provide security for the hashed
contents, fall within this broad description of a signed string (Ans. 14).
4
Appeal 2016-001325
Application 11/616,334
Further, as the Examiner finds, Niwa “improves upon the invention in
Thompson” by teaching a comparison between the filename within the URL
(user ID) and the filename within the signed string (hash value of the user
ID); if this comparison fails, the file is not accessible (id.) Thus, Niwa
teaches or suggests the claimed comparison and validation.
Therefore, in light of the broad terms recited in the claims and the
arguments presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish their
claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We find the
weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 21, 28, and 35, argued together (App. Br. 6) and claims 22, 23, 25,
26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, and 40 dependent therefrom (App. Br. 12).
Claims 24, 31, and 38
Appellants contend the limitation “receiving a second request from a
second client computer to resume an interrupted download of the file” as
recited in dependent claims 24, 31, and 38, is not taught by Grannan (App.
Br. 11). Appellants assert claims 24, 31, and 38 resume interrupted
downloads by enabling the download “independent of an actual temporal
location” (id.). In contrast, Appellants contend, Grannan
teaches resuming an interrupted download of a file in response
to a request based upon a location determination of the second
request: by (i) determining a (second) location of the device
requesting the resumption of the download; (ii) re-
authenticating the device; and (iii) re-authenticating the user of
the device (see Grannan at [0007]. . .),
thus teaching away from the resumed download being independent of an
actual temporal location (id.). We do not agree.
5
Appeal 2016-001325
Application 11/616,334
As the Examiner finds, and we agree, paragraph 15 of Grannan
discloses “[wjhile the portable computing devices 124 and 134 have
different numerical indications they may represent the same physical
portable device or may represent different portable devices having access to
the respective wireless access points 122, 132” (Ans. 15). This suggests the
claimed disputed limitation “when a download is interrupted at one location,
a second device (second client computer) may request to resume the
download of the digital file” (Ans. 15—16). Appellants do not address the
Examiner’s findings with respect to paragraph 15 in their Appeal Brief or in
their Reply Brief. Further, there is nothing in the claims requiring the
resumed interrupted file downloads be enabled independent of an actual
temporal location as Appellants assert. Appellants are arguing limitations
not found in the claims.
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s
reading of claims 24, 31, and 38 on the cited combination of references is
overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 24, 31, and 38 argued
together.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21—26, 28—33, and 35—40 is
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).
AFFIRMED
6