Ex Parte Kass

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2016

13713483 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2016)

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.
13/713,483 12/13/2012 Eric Kass DE920110115US1 1517
12/08/201630206 7590
IBM CORPORATION
ROCHESTER IP LAW DEPT. 917
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/08/2016 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):
rociplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC KASS
Appeal 2016-003656
Application 13/713,483
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. EVANS, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—15, which are all the claims pending and rejected in
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to data
processing. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer-implemented method for secure web
browsing, the method comprising:
- receiving, by a proxy module, a request submitted from a
browser, the browser running in a default runtime environment,
the request requesting content provided by a remote server;
Appeal 2016-003656
Application 13/713,483
- determining, by the proxy module, whether at least one of the
following is true: the received request requests insecure content,
or the requested content comprises insecure content;
- in case the request is determined to request insecure content
and/or in case the requested content is determined to comprise
insecure content, sending, by the proxy module, a copy of the
received request to a receiver module, the receiver module
running in a secure runtime environment separate from the
default runtime environment, the secure runtime environment
preventing any malicious code executed in said runtime
environment to affect the default runtime environment of the
browser;
- responsive to sending, by the proxy module, a copy of the
received request to the receiver module, receiving, from the
receiver module, at least one of: a secure displayable version of
a rendered form of the requested content, or a description
enabling access to the secure displayable version of the
rendered form of the requested content, the rendered form of
the requested content comprising a form produced in the secure
runtime environment by a process of interpreting the requested
content in a way that a graphical representation of the requested
content can be displayed via a graphical user interface to a user,
the secure displayable version of the rendered form of the
requested content comprising a secure displayable graphical
representation of at least some insecure requested content; and
- forwarding, by the proxy module, at least one of the secure
displayable version of the rendered form of the requested
content or the description enabling access to the secure
displayable version of the rendered form of the requested
content received from the receiver module, to the browser.
References and Rejections
Claims 1—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Gribble (U.S. 2007/0174915 Al, published July 26, 2007).
2
Appeal 2016-003656
Application 13/713,483
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contention that the Examiner erred in finding Gribble discloses
receiving, from the receiver module, at least one of: a secure
displayable version of a rendered form of the requested content,
or a description enabling access to the secure displayable
version of the rendered form of the requested content1, the
rendered form of the requested content comprising a form
produced in the secure runtime environment by a process of
interpreting the requested content in a way that a graphical
representation of the requested content can be displayed via a
graphical user interface to a user, the secure displayable version
of the rendered form of the requested content comprising a
secure displayable graphical representation of at least some
insecure requested content,
as recited in independent claim 1 (emphases added).2 See App. Br. 9—15;
Reply Br. 2—6.
The Examiner initially cites Gribble’s Figure 5B and paragraph 80 for
disclosing the italicized claim limitation. See Final Act. 3^4. In response to
Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner cites Gribble’s paragraphs 78 and 80.
See Ans. 7—8. We have examined the cited Gribble’s portions, and they do
not discuss
1 The Examiner does not map the alternative claim element “or a description
enabling access to the secure displayable version of the rendered form of the
requested content.” See Final Act. 4.
2 Appellant raises additional arguments with respect to a non-existing
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See App. Br. 16—17. Because the
Examiner has not rejected any claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we do not reach
the additional arguments.
3
Appeal 2016-003656
Application 13/713,483
receiving, from the receiver module ... a secure display able
version of a rendered form of the requested content, . . . the
rendered form of the requested content comprising a form
produced in the secure runtime environment by a process of
interpreting the requested content in a way that a graphical
representation of the requested content can be displayed via a
graphical user interface to a user, the secure display able version
of the rendered form of the requested content comprising a
secure display able graphical representation of at least some
insecure requested content,
as required by claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 9—15; Reply Br. 2—6.
Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited
Gribble portions disclose the disputed claim limitation.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the
record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claim 9, 14, and 15 recites a claim limitation that
is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 9,
14, and 15. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 9, 14, and 15.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—8 and
10-13, which depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15.
REVERSED
4