Ex Parte Butt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2017

13149579 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2017)

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