Ex Parte ButtDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201713149579 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/149,579 05/31/2011 Alan B. Butt 22455-3000USU3 1722 128128 7590 12/27/2017 Durham Jones & Pinegar, P.C. Intellectual Property Law Group 3301 North Thanksgiving Way, Suite 400 Lehi, UT 84043 EXAMINER RUIZ, ANGELICA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2017 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): ipmail@djplaw.com ckoy@djplaw.com jpitt@djplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALAN B. BUTT Appeal 2017-0064571 Application 13/149,579 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—28. See App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies SecurityMetrics, Inc. as the real party in interest. See App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-006457 Application 13/149,579 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s disclosure relates to “methods and systems for recognizing sensitive information (e.g., payment card account numbers, etc.) in large groups of data.” Spec. 12. Claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added): 1. A system for identifying potentially sensitive information, comprising: a scanning device configured to communicate with a memory device that stores data including potentially sensitive information, the scanning device programmed to: identify a series of consecutive digits having a same length or a same range of lengths as a complete length or a complete range of lengths of sensitive data of interest, in which each digit of the series of consecutive digits is a decimal number, evaluate a subseries of consecutive digits within the series of consecutive digits to determine whether the subseries of consecutive digits corresponds to a known identifier of the sensitive data of interest, including: a comparison of a first value of a first digit of the subseries of consecutive digits to a group consisting of known values of first digits of a plurality of identifiers of the sensitive data of interest; a comparison of a second value of a second digit of the subseries of consecutive digits to a group consisting of values of second digits known to correspond to the value of the first digit in a plurality of identifiers of the sensitive data of interest; and a comparison of a third value of a third digit of the subseries of consecutive digits to a group consisting of values of third digits known to correspond to the value of the second digit in at least one identifier of the sensitive data of interest; and identify each series of consecutive digits that includes a subseries of consecutive digits with first, second, and third digits with values that correspond to values of at least one 2 Appeal 2017-006457 Application 13/149,579 identifier of the sensitive data of interest as a suspected sensitive data string. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1—9, 12—17, 19—22, and 25—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vogel (US 2008/0216174 Al; Sept. 4, 2008) and Grzymala-Busse (US 2011/0040983 Al; Feb. 17, 2011). Final Act. 3. Claims 10, 11, 18, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vogel, Grzymala-Busse, and Baeza-Yates, “Fast Text Searching for Regular Expressions or Automaton Searching on Tries,” Journal of the ACM, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 915—936 (November 1996). Final Act. 11. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vogel and Grzymala-Busse. Final Act. 12. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred, and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellant argues the cited references do not teach or suggest the claim 1 limitation: “identity a series of consecutive digits having a same length or a same range of lengths as a complete length or a complete range of lengths of sensitive data of interest, in which each digit of the series of consecutive 3 Appeal 2017-006457 Application 13/149,579 digits is a decimal number.” App. Br. 7. Particularly, Appellant contends “the examples provided by FIGs. 4 and 5 of Grzymala-Busse—e-mails that contain bank card numbers—include key terms (e.g., dashes) at key locations (e.g., between groups of four numbers).” App. Br. 8, citing Grzymala-Busse 147. Appellant contends the prior art includes a “requirement” that “searches for credit card numbers be based on the separation of digits by dashes,” and thus the references do not teach or suggest “identifying] a length of consecutive digits” as claimed. App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that one having ordinary skill in the art, confronted with Vogel and Grzymala-Busse, would have recognized that credit card numbers could be separated by hyphens, spaces, or contain no separation at all, and would have found Grzymala-Busse’s suggestion of various indicators such as the “number of digits” and the “first four digits” to suggest broader rules than would be required by the fixed format Applicant ascribes to Grzymala- Busse. Advisory Act. 2. Grzymala-Busse identifies sensitive information based on it being “formatted in the manner expected for credit card numbers (i.e. number of digits, arrangement of numbers, first four digits, etc.).” Grzymala-Busse 147; see also Grzymala-Busse 144. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” who would apply Grzymala-Busse’s sensitive information identification to consecutive digits, as claimed. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007); see Ans. 3; see also Grzymala-Busse 17 (describing the disclosed search techniques are applicable to a wide variety of sensitive information, such as 4 Appeal 2017-006457 Application 13/149,579 “bank routing numbers and bank account numbers, as well as social security numbers, names, addresses, telephone numbers, [and] medical prescriptions.”). Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding cited references teach or suggest the limitations of independent claim 1, or independent claims 12, and 19 which recite similar limitations, and the claims dependent thereon. See App. Br. 8—10. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—28. 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation