Ex Parte Matichuk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

11544685 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 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.
11/544,685 10/06/2006 Bruce Matichuk 062A.0001.U1(US) 8327
29683 7590 09/13/2016
HARRINGTON & SMITH
4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202
SHELTON, CT 06484-6212
EXAMINER
STORK, KYLE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BRUCE MATICHUK, JOHN REBSTOCK, and
MICHAEL KRAFT
____________________

Appeal 2013-008487
Application 11/544,685
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 4–14, 16–29, and 31–40. Claims 2, 3, 15, and
30 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis added to
the disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:
Appeal 2013-008487
Application 11/544,685

2
1. A redaction system comprising:
a source of redaction rules comprising a memory; and
a redaction engine connected to the source of redaction
rules, the redaction engine configured to redact an
electronic document in accordance with at least one of
the redaction rules contained in the source of redaction
rules to thereby generate a redacted version of the
electronic document containing at least one redaction,
where the redaction engine is configured to redact a
plurality of different document file formats of
electronic documents, where the redaction engine is
configured to identify the electronic document by
document type and redact the electronic document in
accordance with the redaction rules specific for that
identified document type, wherein the source of redaction
rules comprises at least one rule for automatically
excluding information.
Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16–28, 31–
34, 36–38, and 40 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Torres (US 2004/0088313 A1; published May 6, 2004) and Schneck (US
2003/0172034 A1; published Sept. 11, 2003).1 Final Act. 2–13; Ans. 2–9.

1 Appellants present detailed arguments on the merits with respect to claims
1, 4, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 37, and 40 (App. Br. 6–24; Reply Br.
1–9). Appellants rely on the arguments presented for claim 1 as to the
patentability of remaining dependent claims 10, 16, 17, 20, 23, 31–34, and
36 which depend from claim 1 and contain similar features (see generally
App. Br. 6–21). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the
group of claims (claims 1, 10, 16, 17, 20, 23, and 31–34) rejected for
obviousness over the combination of Torres and Schneck. Based on
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 11), we select claim 4 as representative of
claims 4–8 rejected over Torres and Schneck. Based on Appellants’
arguments (App. Br. 20–21), we also select claim 25 as representative of
Appeal 2013-008487
Application 11/544,685

3
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 29 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Torres, Schneck, and Sperry (US
2006/0259983 A1; published Nov. 16, 2006).2 Final Act. 13–14.
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 12 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Torres, Schneck, and Kobayashi (US 2004/0220919
A1; published Nov. 4, 2004).3 Final Act. 14.
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 35 and 39 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Torres, Schneck, and Patton (US
2003/0145017 A1; published July 31, 2003).4 Final Act. 15.
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6–25)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1–9), the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms
“document” and “document type,” did the Examiner err in rejecting claims
1, 4–14, 16–29, and 31–40 as being obvious over the base combination of

claims 25–28 rejected over Torres and Schneck. And, based on Appellants’
arguments (App. Br. 22), we select claim 37 as representative of claims 37
and 38 rejected over Torres and Schneck.
2 With regard to the rejections of (i) claims 9 and 29 over the combination of
Torres, Schneck, and Sperry; (ii) claims 35 and 39 over the combination of
Torres, Schneck, and Patton, Appellants rely on the arguments already
presented with respect to representative independent claim 1 and
independent claim 37 but do not present arguments as to claims 9, 29, 35,
and 39 under a separate heading.
3 Appellants do not present any arguments as to claim 12 rejected over the
combination of Torres, Schneck, and Kobayashi. Accordingly, we will
sustain this rejection pro forma.
4 Id. fn.2.
Appeal 2013-008487
Application 11/544,685

4
Torres and Schneck because the combination, and specifically Schneck, fails
to teach or suggest a redaction engine configured to identify a “document
type,” apply “redaction rules,” and redact electronic documents having
“different document file formats” accordingly, as set forth in representative
independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in remaining independent
claims 37 and 40?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 2–15) in light
of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6–25) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1–9) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the
Examiner’s response (Ans. 2–9) to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal
Brief. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and as to
claims 1, 4, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 37, and 40, we adopt as our
own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final
Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–15), and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2–9). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of
Appellants’ arguments as follows.
At the outset, we note that claim 1 recites a redaction engine for
redacting an electronic document using an appropriate redaction rule from a
source of redaction rules. The redaction engine is claimed to be able to
redact different document file formats of electronic documents (claims, 1,
37, and 40). The redaction engine is also claimed to (i) identify electronic
Appeal 2013-008487
Application 11/544,685

5
documents by “document type,” and (ii) redact the electronic document “in
accordance with the redaction rules specific for that identified document
type” (claim 1). Independent claims 1, 37, and 40 do not require that the
different electronic document types be coextensive with the different
document file formats. Furthermore, the independent claims do not specify
or define what constitutes a “document type” (claims 1, 37, and 40).
To interpret what is meant by document type, we start with the plain
and ordinary meaning — an electronic document of a specific type. The
“type” could be almost anything, including documents of certain file sizes,
formats (e.g., pdf, html, xml, doc, etc.), languages, colors, etc. Appellants
disclose that the document types could also be different documents, such as
an arrest report versus a police drug seizure report (see Spec. ¶¶ 37 and 38).
Appellants also disclose that documents may have different file formats,
such as html, pdf, doc, etc., but state that the “formats mentioned above are
merely examples” (¶ 45; see Fig. 22, documents 12). According to the
extrinsic evidence of record, and specifically Torres, “[a] document is a
collection of data, knowledge or information which may be on any media
that is machine readable or capable of being converted to machine readable
information and loaded to a database. The document can be text, image,
video[,] or audio” (¶ 8) (emphasis added). Furthermore, Torres describes an
electronic document as being “any digitally based archival media” that “is
prepared as a machine readable document for uploading to the database.
The document can be an audio message to be converted to text (or not), an
image to convert to objects and text or only text” (¶ 67).
In view of all the record evidence before us, we conclude that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “document type” can include any of the
Appeal 2013-008487
Application 11/544,685

6
above. In other words, arrest reports and police drug seizure reports are
types of documents (if loaded electronically), as well as transcripts of 911
calls and audio recordings of 911 calls. And, documents having different
document file formats can be different document types, or they could be of
the same document type.5 For example, two different documents, each
having text on them can be different types based on their file size.
In this light, Schneck’s disclosure of choosing redaction rules based
on detecting whether data is a certain type (see, e.g., ¶¶ 323–37, describing
Books, Movie, Software, Documents, Map image data, or Global
Positioning System software) serves to redact a plurality of different
document file formats of electronic documents and “redact the electronic
document in accordance with the redaction rules specific for that identified
document type” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 37 and
40. Thus, the broad recitations in claims 1, 37, and/or 40 encompass
document types being at least any of the following, inter alia: Books having
an abstract and an index, Movies having trailers and X-rated parts, Software,
Documents like legal documents having paragraphs and words, Map image
data having different resolutions and/or security access levels, and/or Global
Positioning System (GPS) software having different security clearance
levels and/or accuracy and resolution levels. See Schneck (¶¶ 323–36).
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Torres and Schneck teaches or suggests a redaction engine

5 In view of Torres definitions for “document” and descriptions of document
types (see Torres ¶¶ 8 and 67), we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ assertion
(App. Br. 6) that paragraph 45 and Figure 22 of the Specification requires
that a document “file format” be different from a “document type.”
Appeal 2013-008487
Application 11/544,685

7
configured to identify a “document type,” apply “redaction rules,” and
redact electronic documents having “different document file formats”
accordingly, as set forth in representative independent claim 1, and as
similarly recited in remaining independent claims 37 and 40.
With regard to claims 37 and 40, Appellants’ contentions (App. Br.
21–24; Reply Br. 7–9) that the Examiner fails to address the differences
between claim 1 and claims 37 and 40 (the remaining independent claims),
are not persuasive. Although this may be true as to the Examiner’s response
found at page 9 of the Answer, the Examiner did indeed address the
differences in the claims in detail in the Final Office Action (see Final Act.
11–13).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 4–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16–28, 31–34, 36–38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Torres and Schneck. For similar reasons,
we also sustain the Examiner’s remaining obviousness rejections of claims
9, 12, 29, 35, and 39 (which also rely on the same base combination of
Torres and Schneck).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 4–14, 16–29, and
31–40 as being obvious over the base combination of Torres and Schneck
because the base combination teaches or suggests a redaction engine
configured to identify a “document type,” apply “redaction rules,” and
redact electronic documents having “different document file formats”
accordingly, as set forth in representative independent claim 1, and as
similarly recited in remaining independent claims 37 and 40.
Appeal 2013-008487
Application 11/544,685

8

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4–14, 16–29, and 31–40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2013).

AFFIRMED