Ex Parte Marshall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2018

13863154 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/863, 154 04/15/2013
152577 7590 08/27/2018
Thomas I Horstemeyer, LLP (VMW)
3200 Windy Hill Road, SE
Atlanta, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Marshall
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.
W020 (500102-1530) 8995
EXAMINER
LIN, AMIE CHINYU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2018 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):
docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
uspatents@thomashorstemeyer.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN MARSHALL and ERICH STUNTEBECK
Appeal2018-003097
Application 13/863,154
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8-13, and 15-23, which
constitute all claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over
the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention is generally directed to restrictions on
performing functions on a user device and, more specifically, using
compliance rules to grant/deny access to certain functionality only when
Appeal2018-003097
Application 13/863,154
within/ outside certain locations. Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are
independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining at least one request to perform at least one
function on a client device, a current user account associated with
the client device, and a current location of the client device from
the client device;
determining that a function call for a function provided by
an application programming interface (API) of an operating
system of the client device fails to comply with at least one
compliance rule associated with the client device based at least
in part on a comparison of the current location of the client device
and the current user account associated with the client device
with the at least one compliance rule, wherein the at least one
compliance rule comprises at least one of a location where the
client device is authorized to perform the function and an
authorized user account that is permitted to perform the function;
and
in response to at least one determination that performance
of the function on the client device fails to comply with the at
least one compliance rule, causing the client device to queue the
at least one request to perform the function on the client device
until the at least one request complies with the at least one
compliance rule associated with the client device.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-13, and 15-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final
Act. 4---6.
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-13, 15, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious in view of Qureshi (US 2014/0007182 Al) and Benes (US
2008/0160984 Al). Final Act. 6-11.
Claims 16-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of Qureshi and Malik (US 2013/0007245 Al). Final Act. 11-15.
2
Appeal2018-003097
Application 13/863,154
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellants made.
Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs,
are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION
The Examiner finds claims 1 and 9 lack written description support
for the recited limitation that a "compliance rule comprises ... [an]
authorized user account" that is permitted or authorized "to perform the
function." Final Act. 4--5. Similarly, the Examiner finds claim 16 lacks
written-description support for the recited limitation of "determining that
performance of the at least one function ... by the current user account fails
to comply with at least one compliance rule [that] comprises at least one
location where the current user account is unauthorized to perform the at
least one function." Final Act. 5---6. Collectively, we refer to these
limitations of claims 1, 9, and 16 as the "user account limitations."
Specifically, the Examiner finds Appellants' Specification merely discloses
a compliance rule that "ensures the proper user is requesting the
functionality," but fails to disclose that the rule comprises an authorized user
account or a location where the user account is unauthorized to perform the
function. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3--4.
Appellants argue their Specification supports the user-account
limitations. App. Br. 5-8 ( citing Spec. ,r 23); Reply Br. 2---6. In particular,
Appellants contend the Specification's disclosure that "[ s Jome functionality
may only require ensuring that the proper user is requesting the
3
Appeal2018-003097
Application 13/863,154
functionality" provide adequate written-description support for the disputed
limitations. App. Br. 6 ( quoting Spec. ,r 23) ( emphasis omitted); see Reply
Br. 3-5 (quoting Spec. ,r,r 23, 26, 29). Appellants also argue the
Specification's disclosure that the system may require a user device "to be in
compliance with one and/or more of the compliance rules" provides
adequate written-description support for a combination of disclosed
compliance rules. App. Br. 6-8 (quoting Spec. ,r 23) (emphasis added).
"Although [the applicant] does not have to describe exactly the
subject matter claimed, ... the description must clearly allow persons of
ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is
claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citations
omitted). Put another way, "the applicant must ... convey with reasonable
clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she
was in possession of the invention." Vas Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Based upon our review, we find Appellants' Specification discloses
checking compliance of a user device attempting to perform a function with
one or more compliance rules. Spec. ,r 23. Appellants' Specification further
discloses certain functions may require only ensuring a proper user is
attempting to execute the functionality via the user device, whereas other
functionality may have more stringent requirements, including some
combination of location and timing restrictions. Spec. ,r 23.
We find Appellants' Specification would have conveyed to a person
of ordinary skill in the art that Appellants' claimed invention includes
collecting and comparing the existing conditions related to the user device
(i.e., location, user credentials, time, state of the device) to compliance rules.
4
Appeal2018-003097
Application 13/863,154
See Spec. ,r 23. More specifically, Appellants' disclosure of the use of
compliance rules to ensure "the proper user is requesting the functionality"
would have conveyed to an ordinarily skilled artisan that Appellants
contemplated using compliance rules that include the information necessary
to compare the user credentials of a device to user credentials authorized to
execute the desired functionality. See Spec. ,r 23. Accordingly, although the
compliance rules might require additional information (e.g., which functions
may or may not be executed by certain user account and/ or any other
restrictions or permissions associated with a particular user account
attempting to execute a particular function on a user device), we find
Appellants' Specification provides sufficient written-description support to
show possession of the recited user-account limitations.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-13, 15, and 23 as obvious in
view of Qureshi and Benes. Final Act. 6-11. The Examiner also rejects
claims 16-22 as obvious in view of Qureshi and Benes. Final Act. 11-15.
Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 recite limitations directed to:
( 1) obtaining, receiving, or identifying (a) a request to perform a function on
a device, (b) a user account associated with the device, and ( c) a location of
the device; and (2) determining that a function call fails to comply with a
compliance rule that includes either (a) a location the client device is
authorized to perform the function and/ or a user account authorized to
perform the function or (b) a location where the user account is unauthorized
to perform the function with the device.
The Examiner finds Qureshi' s disclosure of providing various mobile
device properties (e.g., user accounts and locations of use) to a management
5
Appeal2018-003097
Application 13/863,154
system teach or suggest the obtaining, receiving, and identifying steps. Final
Act. 6-7, 12-13 (citing Qureshi ,r,r 101-102, 417). The Examiner further
finds Qureshi' s disclosure of using access policies to limit access based on a
device's location and associated user credentials teach or suggest the
determining steps. Final Act. 7-8, 13 (citing Qureshi ,r,r 383-385).
Appellants argue Qureshi' s cited paragraphs do not teach the
determining steps. App. Br. 9-15. Appellants reproduce many of Qureshi's
paragraphs the Examiner cites and assert the paragraphs do not teach the
determining steps because the cited paragraphs do "not appear to specify
how document access polices are checked or enforced" and do not utilize the
claimed "policy framework that includes a number of factors to determine
whether usage of a function provided by an API is permitted." App. Br. 10;
see App. Br. 9-15. Appellants also argue the Examiner has failed to
demonstrate Qureshi teaches or suggests claim 9's subject matter because
claim 9 's recitation of the "query[ ing] at least one compliance rule" step
differs in scope from the subject matter recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13;
Reply Br. 7-8.
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. The
Examiner identified at least paragraph 3 83 in Qureshi as teaching or
suggesting the determining steps. E.g., Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 8-9. Qureshi
discloses determining access to a file system based on access policies.
Qureshi ,r 383 ("Access to the file system 338 can be governed based on
document access policies (e.g., encoded rules)" emphasis added). Qureshi
further discloses such policies or encoded rules may limit access "based on
... (4) geographical position of the device ... (6) whether the user of the
device 120 provides correct credentials." Qureshi ,r 383. Therefore, Qureshi
6
Appeal2018-003097
Application 13/863,154
teaches or suggests determining whether a requested function ( e.g., a file
access request) complies with a compliance rule (Qureshi's access policies),
wherein the compliance rules includes a location (Qureshi's geographical
position of the device) and/or a user account (Qureshi's correct credentials).
Given these findings, we agree with the Examiner that Qureshi teaches or
suggests the determining steps, which includes determining that a function
request fails to comply with a compliance rule that includes a user account
and a location of the device. See Ans. 8-9, 11-12, 14.
Regarding Appellants' argument that the scope claim 9 differs from
that of claim 1, the Examiner finds Qureshi' s determination of whether a
request violates its access policies teaches or suggest querying the
compliance rules. Ans. 11-12. We also agree with the Examiner that
"query" has no special definition and the broadest reasonable interpretation
of "query at least one compliance rule" encompasses Qureshi' s disclosure of
checking access policies (i.e., "encoded rules") to ensure Qureshi's access
requests comply with its policies. See Ans. 11. Accordingly, we are
unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner failed to
demonstrate Qureshi teaches or suggests claim 9's query step.
Because we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 as obvious in view
of Qureshi and Benes. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 16 as obvious in view of Qureshi and Malik. Appellants
do not argue dependent claims 2, 4---6, 8-13, 15, and 17-23 separately with
particularity. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4--
6, 8-13, 15, and 17-23 for the same reasons discussed above.
7
Appeal2018-003097
Application 13/863,154
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-13,
and 15-23 as failing to comply with the written description requirement
under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-13,
and 15-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
8