Ex Parte Parkinson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2016

11469483 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2016)

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