Ex Parte Supramaniam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2015

10742710 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2015)

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.
10/742,710 12/19/2003 Senthilvasan Supramaniam 2222.5470000 5731
26111 7590 06/02/2015
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
WANG, HARRIS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2015 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 SENTHILVASAN SUPRAMANIAM and
YEVGENIY GUTNIK
____________________

Appeal 2013-000445
Application 10/742,7101
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.

ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 37, 38, 44–46, 52, 56, 57, 63–65, and 71. No other claims are
pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1Appellants identify Guardian Data Storage, LLC as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2013-000445
Application 10/742,710

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to method and system for
distribution of notifications in file security systems. Spec. ¶ 10. Claim 37,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
37. A tangible computer-readable storage medium
having instructions stored thereon in a file security system, the
instructions comprising:
setting support for a push mode of communication or a
pull mode of communication;
instructions to interact, without user input, with a server
in the file security system to determine support for either the
push mode or the pull mode of communication; and
instructions to receive a security criteria change
notification message from the server in the file security system,
the security criteria change notification message having been
targeted based upon one or more users or groups associated
with a client computing device,
wherein the security criteria change notification message
indicates:
a change to security policy information that
governs a type, a location, and an extent of access
permitted by the one or more users or groups associated
with the client computing device to specified, secured
files;
an alteration of a document access rule;
an alteration of one or more of a group access right
or group membership; and
an alteration of at least one of a user key, a group
key, or a file key.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
Appellants state that the sole ground to be considered on Appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 37, 38, 44–46, 52, 56, 57,
63–65, and 71 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of the
Appeal 2013-000445
Application 10/742,710

3
combination of Hildebrand (US 2004/0103202 A1; May 27, 2004) and
Bajikar (US 6,577,274 B1; June 10, 2003). App. Br. 14. Specifically,
Appellants argue that Bajikar fails to teach or suggest “‘wherein the security
criteria change notification message indicates: a change to security policy
information that governs a type, a location, and an extent of access
permitted by the one or more users or groups’” as required by independent
claim 37. Id.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Bajikar discloses that, as a mobile device moves
around, an appropriate, preexisting security policy is applied to the device
based on the device’s location, while “[i]n contrast, claim 37 permits
changes to a security policy that govern locations from which access is
permitted.” App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 3–6.
We are not persuaded. As an initial matter, Appellants’ arguments
directed at Bajikar fail to substantively address the combined teachings of
Hildebrand and Bajikar as applied by the Examiner. See In re Merck & Co.
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures). Here, the Examiner
cites Bajikar for its suggestion of updating security policies based on a
mobile device’s location, in combination with Hildebrand’s disclosure of a
system for updating security policies through push notifications. Ans. 5–6.
Moreover, responding to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Bajikar expressly describes changes to security policies as
claimed with the following disclosure: “‘as a user moves around with the
Appeal 2013-000445
Application 10/742,710

4
mobile device, . . . the security policy for that device is appropriately
updated . . . .’” Id. at 8–9 (quoting Bajikar, col. 1, ll. 54–58); accord id. at 6
(explaining that Hildebrand changes to location-dependent access control
policies and additionally citing Bajikar as additional evidence that the
claimed limitation was known in the art).Appellants present no evidence or
persuasive argument to support a narrow interpretation of claim 37 that
would exclude Bajikar’s methods for updating security policies based on a
device’s location, as cited by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive and sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37, as well as claims 38, 44–46, 52, 56,
57, 63–65, and 71 which were not separately argued.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 37, 38, 44–
46, 52, 56, 57, 63–65, and 71 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh