Ex Parte McReynoldsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201612977964 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/977,964 12/23/2010 Joren Bartley McReynolds 49845 7590 05/27/2016 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 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. 2043.851US1 1342 EXAMINER CALLAHAN, PAULE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2437 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2016 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): USPTO@SLWIP.COM SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOREN BARTLEY McREYNOLDS Appeal2014-005934 Application 12/977,964 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-22. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to detecting and neutralizing malware in a client machine. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the matter on appeal: 1 The real party in interest is identified as eBay Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-005934 Application 12/977,964 1. A method comprising: receiving a request for interface information, over a network, from a client machine, the request being received at a server; generating the interface information at the server responsive to receiving the request, the interface information including at least one input mechanism to receive user information from a user and countermeasure information for utilization on the client machine to detect whether the interface information is modified on the client machine to receive the user information from the user that is not authorized; and communicating the interface information, over the network, to the client machine. App. Br. 2 (Claims Appendix Amended). REJECTIONS Claims 1-5, 11-15, 21, and 222 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amir et al. (US 2011/0072262 Al; March 2011) ("Amir") and Kang et al., US 2010/0024033 Al; January 28, 2010) ("Kang"). Final Act. 8-10. Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amir, Kang, and Fan et al.(US 2009/0070869 Al; March 12, 2009) ("Fan"). Final Act 10-11. Claims 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amir, Kang, and Leong et al. (US 2006/0253446 Al; November 9, 2006) ("Leong"). Final Act. 11-13. Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amir, Kang, Fan, and Leong. Final Act. 13-15. 2 Claim 22 is cancelled. App. Br. 5. 2 Appeal2014-005934 Application 12/977,964 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Amir and Kang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 8-9; see also Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 12- 13. First, Appellant argues Amir does not teach the claim 1 limitation "generating the interface information ... including ... countermeasure information." App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2-7. According to Appellant, Amir "relates to an Anti-Trojan software module that preexists" and "Anti-Trojan software that preexists is not generated." App. Br. 10. Appellant further argues the claim recites "generating" as being at the server, not on a client computer. Id. Second, Appellant argues Amir does not teach the claim 1 limitation "generating ... responsive to receiving a request" because Amir's anti- trojan software is not bound to any particular webpage and "nowhere does Amir relate the website code as being a webpage or being in a webpage." App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 7-8. Appellant further argues, because Amir's anti-trojan software is activated substantially and continuously, there is no reason to "generat[e] ... responsive to receiving the request." Id. (citing i-f 51 ). Appellant also argues the preprogrammed anti-trojan software "defeats a generation that [is] responsive to a request." Id. The Examiner finds the Specification does not define the term "generating." Ans. 12. The Examiner finds Amir's webpage is rendered on the client browser interface and is inherently in response to a standard http "get" request. Id. at 13 (citing Amir i-fi-1 40-46). The Examiner then finds Amir's interface information in the form of the webpage, therefore, must be generated from data that is generated by the server and then provided to the 3 Appeal2014-005934 Application 12/977,964 client machine browser. Id. Regarding "preexisting," the Examiner finds the Specification does not indicate the countermeasure is created anew for each user request and, for example, the countermeasure module is pre- written software. Id. (citing Spec. i-fi-133, 34). The Examiner also finds Amir teaches the countermeasure module may be provided with new comparison information after it has sent to the client machine. Id. at 14 (citing i-fi-1 45, 46). The Examiner finds Amir teaches interface information that includes input information and countermeasure information because anti-trojan software module and user input information is embedded in the webpage that is rendered on the client machine. Id. at 14 (citing i-fi-1 45, 46). In particular, the Examiner finds "The anti-trojan module monitors user input data that is entered in the web form and sent to a server, and the anti-trojan software module also generates counter measure information in the form of warning or alert information sent to the web server if the monitoring reveals suspicious user data. Id. Regarding "generating ... at the server," the Examiner finds Amir does not teach the anti-trojan module ("countermeasure information") is generated at a client computer, nor was this asserted in the rejections. Id. at 14. Regarding Appellant's second argument "responsive to receiving a request," the Examiner finds: Amir teaches at [0010]-[0012] that his anti-trojan module is functionally associated with a website's code, i.e., is "embedded" in the website code, and that it is "instanced" on the client's computer browser after the code, i.e., a webpage, is sent to the client computer by the server in response to a request made using the http and TCP /IP protocols as discussed supra. Amir teaches these features again at 4 Appeal2014-005934 Application 12/977,964 [0045]-[0048] where anti-trojan and anti-pharming security modules are associated with or embedded in a webpage sent to a client computer browser whereupon it is instanced in the clients browser window. Ans. 15. Regarding Appellant's argument that because Amir's anti-trojan software is activated substantially and continuously, there is no reason to "generate ... responsive to receiving the request," the Examiner finds: in the paragraph the Appellant is referencing, [ 00 51], Amir is only discussing the activity of the countermeasure module after it has been sent to the user's computer by the server. Amir is not teaching that the anti-pharming module is merely permanently installed on a user's computer prior to first contacting a server as the Appellant suggests. In this paragraph Amir is merely disclosing two alternative embodiments for his security modules: where they are continuously active, or where they are dormant until activated by a predefined occurrence after they have been sent to the user's computer by the server. Id. at 16. Third, Appeiiant argues Amir does not teach the iimitation "generating ... to detect interface information that is modified." App. Br. 12. However, the Examiner relies on Kang for this limitation and Appellant presents no basis in the Appeal Brief why Kang does not teach this limitation. App. 16. The Examiner's findings regarding the teaching of Kang are reasonable and not rebutted by Appellant. Final Act. 8-9 (citing Figs. 4, 5; i-fi-153, 54); see also Ans. 16-17. Appellant's arguments regarding Kang, presented for the first time in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 8-9), are not responsive to a new rejection or shift in the Examiner's position raised in the Answer. Therefore, in the absence of good cause shown, these untimely arguments are waived, and we do not consider them in our decision. Ex Parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). 5 Appeal2014-005934 Application 12/977,964 We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and, instead, agree with the Examiner's findings. In particular, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner's interpretation of the term "generating" is unreasonable or overbroad as applied to the teaching of Amir as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, great care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of the Specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and independent claims 11 and 21 as these claims recite similar limitations as claim 1 and are not argued with particularity. App. Br. 13-15. We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 as these claim are not argued separately. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation