Ex Parte ParkinsonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 9, 201611469483 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111469,483 08/31/2006 14400 7590 05/09/2016 Patent Docket Administrator LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP 65 Livingston A venue Roseland, NJ 07068 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Steven W. Parkinson 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. 05220.1184 (Lll35) 6520 EXAMINER NAMAZI, MEHDI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2139 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/09/2016 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 STEVEN W. PARKINSON Appeal2014-006801 Application 11/469,483 Technology Center 2100 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 6, 9, 16, 18, 20-26, 28-30, 36-38, 41, 42, 45, and 46, 2 which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Red Hat Inc. (App. Br. 3). 2 Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 19, 27, 31-35, 39, 40, 43, and 44 were previously cancelled. Appeal2014-006801 Application 11/469,483 STATEivIENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's invention relates to a storage device having interfaces to transfer data to and from other devices without the need for an intermediate device, akin to a dual-sided flash drive. The data may comprise files, digital cash, or security authorization objects, such that possession of the storage device enables a user to make money transfers and other transactions normally requiring authorization (see Spec. 3). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows (the contested limitations are italicized): 1. A storage device, comprising: a memory to store data objects in the storage device, the data objects comprising a security authorization object and a file, wherein the security authorization object comprises an authorization to a user to perform an action associated with transfer of the file; a first interface, coupled to the memory, to transfer the data objects; a second interface, coupled to the memory and to interface of another storage device, to transfer the data objects; and a user interface device comprising a display and a switch, wherein the display to show, to the user, the data objects stored in the memory and the switch to allow the user to select one of the data objects shown on the display, in response to the security authorization object as the selected data object, the user interface device to transfer the security authorization object on one of the first interface and the second interface to the another storage device, in response to the transfer of the security authorization object and the file as the selected object, the user interface device to perform the action associated with the transfer of the 2 Appeal2014-006801 Application 11/469,483 file on one of the first interface and the second interface to the another storage device. The Examiner's Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 9, 16, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) overPocrass (US 7,511,233 B2; Mar. 31, 2009), Mochizuki (US 8,245,305 B2; Aug. 14, 2012), Kavian (US 2008/0052461 Al; Feb. 28, 2008), and Nagayama (US 2006/0265596 Al; Nov. 23, 2006). The Examiner further added Takase (US 7,620,740 B2; Nov. 17, 2009) to reject claims 18 and 20; Serpa (US 2006/0218408 Al; Sept. 28, 2006) to reject claims 28-30 and 36-38; Wice (US 2007 /0248311 Al; Oct. 26, 2007) to reject claims 42 and 46; and Walker (2006/0025207 Al; Feb. 2, 2006) to reject claims 41 and 45. ANALYSIS We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims comprising claims 1, 6, 9, 16, 18, 20-26, 28-30, 36-38, 41, 42, 45, and 46 as Appellant has not argued any of the other claims in this group with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In rejecting representative claim 1, the Examiner relied on Pocrass as disclosing the memory and file data object, the first and second interfaces, a display, and a switch (Final Act. 5). The Examiner further relied on Mochizuki to teach the security authorization object (Final Act. 6) and performing the action associated with the file in response to the transfer of the security authorization object (Final Act. 8), Kavian to teach selecting 3 Appeal2014-006801 Application 11/469,483 data objects shown on the display (Final Act. 6), and Nagayama to teach selecting and transferring the security authorization object (Final Act. 7). Appellant disputes whether the cited art teaches the following limitations of claim 1 in combination: (1) "a security authorization object comprises an authorization to a user to perform an action associated with transfer of the file" (App. Br. 7-8); (2) "in response to the security authorization object as the selected data object, the user interface device to transfer the security authorization object on one of the first interface and the second interface to the another storage device" (App. Br. 9); and (3) "in response to the transfer of the security authorization object and the file as the selected data object, the user interface device to perform the action associated with the transfer of the file on one of the first interface and the second interface to the another storage device" (App. Br. 12). Issue 1 - Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Pocrass, Mochizuki, Kavian, and Nagayama teaches "the data objects comprising a security authorization object and a file, wherein the security authorization object comprises an authorization to a user to perform an action associated with transfer of the file, " as recited in independent claim 1? The Examiner finds that Pocrass discloses the memory to store data objects including a file but admits Pocrass does not disclose a security authorization object (Final Act. 2), and consequently relies on Mochizuki, column 1, lines 21-24, to teach a security authorization object as corresponding to "security settings" in a file (Final Act. 2; Ans. 4), and to teach printing as performing the authorized action associated with transfer of the file (Mochizuki, col. 1, 11. 21-24; Ans. 8). 4 Appeal2014-006801 Application 11/469,483 Appellant argues that the combination of Pocrass, ivfochizuki, Kavian, and Nagayama fails to teach or suggest a "security authorization object comprises an authorization to a user to perform an action associated with transfer of the file," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7) because no mention of a security authorization object or transferring a file is made. In addition, Appellant argues that the security setting information does not teach the ability to transfer a secure authorization object and Mochizuki does not elsewhere teach these concepts" (App. Br. 8). Furthermore, Appellant finds no teaching or suggestion of such a feature anywhere in Kavian or Nagayama (App. Br. 9-11). Appellant has provided a description of "security authorization object" in their Specification as quoted below (emphasis added): For example, the devices may be configured to transfer a security authorization object among devices. A security authorization object is any object, which when presented to a relying party, will allow the holder of that object to perform some action. For example, a security authorization object may indicate that the holder of the device has been authorized to perform certain tasks or approve various transactions, such as a manager or administrator. Embodiments of the present invention allow for the secure transfer of security authorization objects. Spec. i-f9. Because Appellant's Specification defines a security authorization object as any object allowing a holder to perform some action, this would comprise part of a file which includes security settings, such as that referred to in Mochizuki, column 2, lines 13-17, as "a security setting information extracting part that extracts security setting information which includes a setting item which is relevant to the security being set to each of the files." 5 Appeal2014-006801 Application 11/469,483 Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that a security authorization object is taught. As to the contention that there is no teaching of a security authorization object that comprises authorization to a user to perform an action associated with transfer of the file, we agree with the Examiner that printing a file involves a type of file transfer, and that the security setting information object provides the authorization for this type of data transfer (Ans. 4; citing Mochizuki, col. 1, 11. 21-24). See also Mochizuki, Fig. 6B, which shows the security authorization object settings 601, one of which is the ability to disable printing for a selected file, and note that this authorization affects a user's ability to perform the action of printing. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Issue 2 - Did the Examiner err in finding Pocrass, Mochizuki, Kavian and Nagayama to teach "in response to the security authorization object as the selected data object, the user interface device to transfer the security authorization object on one of the first interface and the second interface to the another storage device, " as recited in independent claim 1? The Examiner finds that Nagayama, paragraph 77, teaches transferring the security authorization object to the another storage device (Final Act. 7). The Examiner later indicates in the Examiner's Answer that another aspect of Mochizuki' s invention teaches an input and output apparatus for the transfer of data (Ans. 10; Mochizuki, col. 4, 11. 12--40, and Fig. 2). Appellant argues that there is no mention of transferring a security authorization object to another device when the security authorization object 6 Appeal2014-006801 Application 11/469,483 is a selected data object (App. Br. 10), and that pushing a button as taught by Nagayama is not the same as selecting a data object (App. Br. 11 ). Moreover, Appellant contends that Nagayama only describes copying the file data, and does not teach sending the authentication data corresponding to the copied file data to another device (App. Br. 11 ). We find Appellant's argument with respect to Nagayama to be moot since the cited column 4 of Mochizuki is already found to teach transferring a security authorization object from one device to another and this feature is also taught in Figures 2 and 7. We agree with the Examiner's findings that Mochizuki , column 4, lines 12--40, and Fig. 2, teaches that a file processor in a file apparatus may transfer files from an input apparatus to an output apparatus (Ans. 10), and as previously shown supra, a file may contain a security authorization object (Ans. 4) and therefore such an object is transferred from a first input interface to a second output interface within the transferred file. See also Mochizuki, Figure 7 and column 8, lines 45-53 that teach the output file may be a coupled file with the transferred security authorization object settings. Therefore, we find that the Examiner has not erred in finding Mochizuki to also teach this limitation of claim 1. Issue 3 - Did the Examiner err in finding Pocrass, Mochizuki, Kavian and Nagayama to teach "in response to the transfer of the security authorization object and the file as the selected object, the user interface device to perform the action associated with the transfer of the file on one of the first interface and the second interface to the another storage device, " as recited in independent claim 1? 7 Appeal2014-006801 Application 11/469,483 The Examiner finds ivfochizuki teaches that a file management information includes setting information corresponding to the security authorization object and to a file to be printed as the object being transferred to a printer storage device (Ans. 7-8). Appellant argues that Mochizuki does not teach or suggest, in response to (1) the transfer of the security authorization object and (2) the file as the selected data object, the user interface device to perform the action associated with the transfer of the file on one of the first interface and the second interface to the another storage device (App. Br. 13). As discussed supra, the Examiner finds that Mochizuki teaches transferring a security authorization object as a setting within a file which is transferred when a file is transferred (Ans. 4, 10). We agree with the Examiner that printing reasonably corresponds to performing an action corresponding to the transfer of the file because the printing of a file may or may not be disabled such that printing may or may not be performed on another output storage device corresponding to a printer (Ans. 7-8). Therefore, for all of the reasons indicated above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 6, 9, 16, 18, 20---26, 28-30, 36--- 38, 41, 42, 45, and 46 that have been grouped with claim 1. CONCLUSION As discussed herein, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Pocrass, Mochizuki, Kavian, and Nagayama teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1 as well as the remaining claims which are not argued separately. 8 Appeal2014-006801 Application 11/469,483 Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 6, 9, 16, 18, 20-26, 28-30, 36-38 and 41--42. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 6, 9, 16, 18, 20-26, 28-30, 36-38, 41, 42, 45, and 46 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation