Ex Parte Pathiyal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

13707103 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131707, 103 12/06/2012
82313 7590 02/25/2016
Conley Rose - BlackBerry Files
Attn: J. Robert Brown
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Krishna K. Pathiyal
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.
10552-US-CNT
(4214-25203)
CONFIRMATION NO.
1085
EXAMINER
BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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):
ConleyRoseReporting@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRISHNA K. P ATHIY AL
Appeal2014-004820
Application 13/707,103
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-004820
Application 13/707,103
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-10 and 12-17. Claim 11 was canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to a "method and device that provide a
security interface." (Spec. i-f 20.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of controlling user access to data on a mobile
device having a wireless transceiver, the method comprising:
receiving, via the wireless transceiver, non-secure data and
secure data from one or more data sources via a wireless
network;
restricting, via a security interface of the mobile device, user
access to secure data while allowing user access to non-secure
data, secure data including data protected by restricted access,
and non-secure data including data that is not secure data;
displaying, via the security interface, the non-secure data
received via the wireless network, without requiring user
authentication;
displaying an indication that secure data has been received
from the one or more data sources, without requiring user
authentication;
receiving, via the security interface, a user request for
additional data related to certain non-secure data displayed via
the security interface;
1 Appellant identifies Research In Motion Limited as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal2014-004820
Application 13/707,103
receiving, via the wireless transceiver, additional data
related to the certain non-secure data; and
displaying, via the security interface, the additional data,
without requiring user authentication.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Nakayama US 2002/0042288 Al Apr. 11, 2002
Sohn et al. US 2002/0091762 Al July 11, 2002
Peters US 6,516,421 Bl Feb.4,2003
Olkin et al. US 2003/0046533 Al Mar. 6, 2003
Currans et al. US 6, 727 ,930 B2 Apr. 27, 2004
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-8, 12, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sohn, Olkin, and Nakayama. (Final
Act. 3.)
2. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sohn, Olkin, and Currans. (Final Act. 5.)
3. Claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sohn, Olkin, and Peters. (Final Act. 6.)
APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS
1. Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 1-8, 12, 16, and 17
is improper because the combination does not teach or suggest "restricting,
via a security interface of the mobile device, user access to secure data while
3
Appeal2014-004820
Application 13/707,103
allowing user access to non-secure data," as recited in claims 1 and 17, or "a
security interface enabled to: restrict user access to secure data while
allowing user access to non-secure data," as recited in claim 16. (App. Br.
10.)
2. Appellant also argues that the rejection of claims 1-8, 12, 16,
and 17 is improper because the combination does not teach or suggest
"displaying an indication that secure data has been received from the one or
more data sources, without requiring user authentication," as recited in
claims 1 and 17, or "a security interface enabled to: ... display an indication
that secure data has been received from the one or more data sources,
without requiring user authentication," as recited in claim 16. (App. Br. 14.)
ANALYSIS
"restricting, via a security interface of the mobile device, user
access to secure data while allowing user access to non-secure data"
and "a security' inte1face enabled to: restrict user access
to secure data while allowing user access to non-secure data"
The Examiner finds that Sohn teaches receiving non-secure data and
secure data, and that Olkin teaches "restricting via a security interface of the
mobile device, user access to secure data while allowing user access to non-
secure data." (Final Act. 3--4.) The Examiner further finds that "[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the user
authentication of Sohn into the system of Olkin in order to protect secret
data from unauthorized users." (Id. at 4.)
Appellant argues that "[ n ]either the cited portions nor elsewhere in
Olkin provide any disclosure of Appellant's claimed 'restricting, via a
security interface of the mobile device, user access to secure data while
4
Appeal2014-004820
Application 13/707,103
allowing user access to non-secure data."' (App. Br. 11.) The Examiner
finds that "the term 'security interface' ... is merely a user interface, part of
which by definition enforces security authentication" and that "a graphical
user interface with a security component, is a security interface." (Ans. 4--
5.) As the record does not show "security interface" to be a term of art with
a particular meaning, and as the Specification does not provide a definition,
we agree with the Examiner that a user interface with a security component
is a "security interface," and that this limitation is found in Olkin. See In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the
pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably
allow."). In the combination, the "security interface" restricts access to
secure data in one window (e.g., by requiring a password), while allowing a
user to view non-secure data in another window.
Appellant also argues that the combination is "purely a hindsight
reconstruction." (App. Br. 11.) We do not agree. Reconstruction is proper
"so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and
does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure." In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, that a person of skill in the art would have known to
"incorporate the user authentication of Sohn into the system of Olkin in
order to protect secret data from unauthorized users." (Ans. 4 (emphasis
omitted).) The cited art establishes that both password protection and
encryption were known and used for restricting data access to authorized
users.
5
Appeal2014-004820
Application 13/707,103
In the Reply, Appellant argues that "Sohn actually teaches away from
restricting user access" because "Sohn's system is specifically designed such
that 'the user is able to access and view web pages ... while concurrently
viewing the real time streaming media broadcast channel."' (Reply Br. 3
(emphasis omitted).) We fail to see how this constitutes teaching away. See
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[M]ere disclosure of
alternative designs does not teach away."). In the combination, public
information is streamed in one window, while access to the secure data on
the web page is restricted until it is decrypted.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Sohn and Olkin teaches restricting user access to secure data while allowing
user access to non-secure data. 2
"displaying an indication that secure data has been received from
the one or more data sources, without requiring user authentication"
and "a security interface enabled to: ... display an indication
that secure data has been received from the one or more
data sources, without requiring user authentication"
The Examiner explains that "Olkin teaches that a receiver will open
the email account and then will detect the email is restricted," that"[ o ]nly
after a detection of secure email will the user be authenticated," and that
"after detection of the email the module will prompt the receiver for a
password." (Ans. 6.) Given that Olkin discloses the receipt of a secure
email with a password prompt, the Examiner finds it would have been
obvious to indicate receipt of such an email with a notification message, as
2 Appellant does not argue in the Appeal Brief that the claims are patentable
by virtue of the "mobile device" limitation. To the extent such an argument
is pressed in the Reply (see Reply Br. 2 ("much less doing so via a security
interface of a mobile device")), it is waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b ).
6
Appeal2014-004820
Application 13/707,103
disclosed in Nakayama, Figure 9 of which shows a status bar indicating that
a new message has been received. (Id.)
We agree that the password prompt would reflect receipt of secure
data without requiring user authentication and that it would have been
obvious to use Nakayama's status bar to convey the same information.
Appellant's argument that Nakayama does not show displaying an indicator
without requiring user authentication is beside the point, because Olkin
teaches this feature. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.").
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Sohn, Olkin, and Nakayama teaches displaying an indication that secure data
has been received from the one or more data sources, without requiring user
authentication.
DECISION
For the reasons enumerated above, we affirm the Examiner's rejection
of independent claims 1, 16, and 17, along with dependent claims 2-8 and
12, which were not separately argued. We also affirm the rejection of claims
9, 10, and 13-15, which were argued to be patentable only based on their
dependency from independent claim 1 (see App. Br. 15).
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
7