Ex Parte BALINSKY et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

13082746 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/082,746 04/08/2011
22879 7590 05/02/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Helen BALINSKY
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.
82275683 6714
EXAMINER
FARAMARZI, GITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2498
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HELEN BALINSKY and STEVEN J. SIMSKE
Appeal2014-007383
Application 13/082,7461
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-19, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2014-007383
Application 13/082,746
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method of enabling ordered updates to a
secure document using an ordered sequence of signature verification keys
(Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for enabling access to a secure document by a
document service, the method comprising:
obtaining from a document owner an accessible document
and a sequence of signature verification keys having a prescribed
order;
allocating an access address for accessing the accessible
document over a network connection;
selecting a next signature verification key from the
sequence in accordance with the prescribed order;
receiving a next uploaded document;
verifying a signature associated with the uploaded
document using the next signature verification key, wherein:
in response to a failed verification of the next
signature, rejecting the uploaded document, and
in response to successful verification of the next
signature, replacing the accessible document with the
uploaded document as the accessible document; and
repeating the selecting, the receiving, and the verifying.
2
Appeal2014-007383
Application 13/082,746
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Eden
Komano et al.
("Komano ")
Goldman et al.
("Goldman")
US 2003/0044012 Al Mar. 6, 2003
US 7,496,759 B2 Feb. 24, 2009
US 2010/0287378 Al Nov. 11, 2010
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goldman, Eden, and Komano (Final Act. 3-10).
ISSUES
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of
Goldman, Eden, and Komano teaches "obtaining from a document owner an
accessible document and a sequence of signature verification keys having a
prescribed order" and "verifying a signature associated with the uploaded
document using the next signature verification key, wherein ... in response
to successful verification of the next signature, replacing the accessible
document with the uploaded document as the accessible document," as
recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15?
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of
Goldman, Eden, and Komano teaches "each signature verification key of the
ordered sequence is specific to a part of the composite document," as recited
in dependent claims 2 and 9?
3
Appeal2014-007383
Application 13/082,746
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' argument that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-10 (mailed Nov. 21, 2013)) and the
findings and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-8
(mailed Apr. 24, 2014)). We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15
Appellants argue Goldman does not teach or suggest "obtaining from
a document owner an accessible document and a sequence of signature
verification keys having a prescribed order" and "verifying a signature
associated with the uploaded document using the next signature verification
key, wherein ... in response to successful verification of the next signature,
replacing the accessible document with the uploaded document as the
accessible document," as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 (App. Br. 6-7; Reply
Br. 1-3). Specifically, Appellants argue "the order in which the
concatenated signatures are arranged in Goldman's multiple encoding
signature does not correspond to the order in which signatures associated
with a sequence of uploaded documents are verified for replacing the
preceding verified uploaded accessible document" (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2).
We are not persuaded because Appellants' arguments do not address
the Examiner's combination of Goldman, Eden, and Komano (App. Br. 6-7;
4
Appeal2014-007383
Application 13/082,746
Reply Br. 1-3 ). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Komano teaches
ordered verification of a successively signed shared document (Final Act. 4--
5 (citing Komano 2: 18-34) ). In Komano, a successive signer verifies and
updates a shared document by verifying a previous signer's signature (Final
Act. 4--5 (citing Komano 7:66-8:8, 12:4--18); Komano 11:13-16).
Appellants' arguments directed towards Goldman do not address the
Examiner's finding that Komano verifies an ordered signature to
successively update a shared document.
Appellants further argue "[ n ]either Eden nor Komano discloses or
suggests 'obtaining from a document owner the document and a sequence of
signature verification keys having a prescribed order,"' as recited in claims
1, 8, and 15 (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Goldman
teaches encoding an author's document using a multiple encoding signature
and a recipient validating the author's document using the multiple encoding
signature (Ans. 4 (citing Goldman i-fi-121, 23); Final Act. 4). That multiple
encoded signature is "stored in an order, e.g., a hierarchical order" (see Ans.
4 (citing Goldman i125, Fig. 2C); Final Act. 7). Appellants' arguments
directed towards Eden and Komano do not address the Examiner's finding
that Goldman teaches multiple encoded signatures stored in an order.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding the
combination of Goldman, Eden, and Komano teaches "obtaining from a
document owner an accessible document and a sequence of signature
verification keys having a prescribed order" and "verifying a signature
associated with the uploaded document using the next signature verification
key, wherein ... in response to successful verification of the next signature,
5
Appeal2014-007383
Application 13/082,746
replacing the accessible document with the uploaded document as the
accessible document," as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15.
Dependent Claims 2 and 9
Appellants argue Komano does not teach or suggest "each signature
verification key of the ordered sequence is specific to a part of the composite
document," as recited in claims 2 and 9 (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4).
Specifically, Appellants argue "Komano discloses a multisignature system in
which a plurality of signers generate a single multisignature by successively
signing the document," where "each signature applies to the entire
document, not to a specific part of the document" (App. Br. 8 (citing
Komano 2:18-28, Fig. IA); Reply Br. 4).
Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
claims. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Komano teaches that successive
document signers can update a portion of a document and sign that updated
portion of the document (Ans. 5 (citing Komano 2:41-52)). In Komano,
Document xis updated or changed by User 2 to "obtain[] Document x2 as
difference information," which is signed with Signature 1-2 (id.). That is,
User 2's signature, Signature 1-2, is specific to the updated Document x2
portion of Document x (id.). While Signature 1-2 verifies the entire
Document x, Signature 1-2 also verifies a specific portion of Document x
(Document x2), and the claims do not preclude a signature that verifies both
the entire document and a specific portion of the document. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding the combination of
Goldman, Eden, and Komano teaches "each signature verification key of the
6
Appeal2014-007383
Application 13/082,746
ordered sequence is specific to a part of the composite document," as recited
in claims 2 and 9. 2
Dependent Claims 3-7, 10--14, and 16--19
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 16-19 were not separately argued
(see App. Br. 8-9). It follows, we sustain the rejection of claims 3-7, 10-
14, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goldman, Eden, and Komano 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
2 Should there be further prosecution with respect to claim 2, we observe
claim 2 recites "the document." Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends,
recites "a secure document," "an accessible document," and "a next
uploaded document," and it is unclear to which of those documents recited
in claim 1, "the document" of claim 2 refers. Claim 9, depending from
claim 8, is similarly unclear.
7