Ex Parte Curtis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2012

11026877 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES RUSSELL CURTIS
____________________

Appeal 2010-006879
Application 11/026,877
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, HUNG H. BUI, and LYNNE E.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006879
Application 11/026,877

2

Appellant
1
seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a self-maintained access control
mechanism residing within a web browser and a corresponding method of
controlling user access to websites. The self-maintained access control
mechanism allows a user to request access to a website, via a browser.
Previously accessed sites can be accessed by the user without the need for
self-authentication; however, self-authentication (i.e., password, personal
identification number “PIN”, personal data, thumb or handprint scan, retina
scan, facial biometric scan, etc.) is required to access new sites. Therefore,
access to certain websites can be controlled and the user can be prevented
from later claiming that access is accidental. See generally Spec. ¶22, ¶33
and Abstract.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:

1. A computer-implemented method for controlling
access by a plurality of users to websites, comprising:

1
Real Party in Interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company L.P.
Appeal Brief filed August 10, 2009 (“App. Br.”).
Appeal 2010-006879
Application 11/026,877

3

receiving a first request that includes a first uniform
resource locator (URL) from a first user of said plurality of
users, said first URL identifying a first webpage;

ascertaining whether said first URL is part of a first set of
URLs, said first set of URLs being associated with said first
user;

if said first URL is not part of said first set of URLs,
obtaining an acknowledgment from said first user that said
first user is requesting to access said first webpage.
Evidence Considered
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Reiche U.S. 6,092,196 Jul. 18, 2000
Bhat U.S. 2003/0200442 A1 Oct. 23, 2003
Reynar U.S. 2004/0003389 A1 Jan. 1, 2004

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1-7 and 9-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Bhat. Ans. 3-7.
(2) Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bhat and Reynar. Ans. 8-9.
(3) Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bhat and Reiche. Ans. 9-10.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether Bhat discloses the feature
“if said first URL is not part of said first set of URLs, obtaining an
acknowledgment from said first user that said first user is requesting to
Appeal 2010-006879
Application 11/026,877

4

access said first webpage,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claims 9 and 16. App. Br. 11-16.

III. ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellant’s arguments raised in the Briefs, but
do not find them persuasive to demonstrate reversible error in the
Examiner’s position. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). As such,
we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the final Office Action, and (2) the detailed findings and responses set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to each of the
arguments raised by Appellant in the Briefs. We further highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.

CLAIMS 1-7, and 9-19 REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C § 102(b) AS
ANTICIPATED BY BHAT

With respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 16, Appellant contends
that Bhat does not disclose the feature “if said first URL is not part of said
first set of URLs, obtaining an acknowledgment from said first user that
said first user is requesting to access said first webpage,” as recited in
independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 16.
App. Br. 11-16. In particular, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s reading of
¶0082 of Bhat, which states as follows:
The attributes that may be specified by the policy agent
500 may include an "access allow" list, an "access deny" list
and an "access not enforced" list[.] The access allow list is a list
Appeal 2010-006879
Application 11/026,877

5

of all the URLs that an authenticated user is allowed to access.
The access deny list is the list of all URLs that an authenticated
user is not allowed to access. And the access not enforced list is
the list of all URLs that are not subjected to URL policy
enforcement. However, the user still requires authentication in
order to access this list.

App. Br. 13. Emphasis added.

According to Appellant, “if … the user’s URL request does not match
either the access allow list or the access not enforced list, the user’s URL
request is denied and processing terminates” as described in ¶0093 of Bhat,
without “obtaining an acknowledgement from said first user that said first
user is requesting to access said first webpage” as recited in independent
claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 16. App. Br. 14.
Emphasis in original.
However, we disagree with Appellant’s characterization of ¶0082 and
¶0093 of Bhat. As correctly found by the Examiner, ¶0082 of Bhat refers to
URL access policy of the URL service module 310, shown in Figure 3. Ans.
4. In contrast, ¶0093 of Bhat refers to one example implementation process
flow, shown in FIG. 6, performed in accordance with the URL access
service, shown in FIG. 3. Once the user’s URL request is denied, processing
terminates at step 695, as shown in FIG. 6 and described in ¶0093 of Bhat.
However, afterwards, the user can also be re-directed to the authentication
service URL for authentication, as further described in ¶0065 of Bhat.
Moreover, during prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). However, “limitations are not to be read into the claims from
Appeal 2010-006879
Application 11/026,877

6

the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Here, the Examiner has broadly interpreted Appellant’s claimed “first
set of URLs” as encompassing a combined URL access list, including: (1) an
“access allow” list and (2) an “access deny” list of Bhat, ¶0082. As such, if
the first URL (e.g., a URL of the “access not enforced” list) is not part of the
“first set of URLs” (e.g., the “access allow” list + the “access deny” list),
then the user still requires authentication, as per ¶0082 of Bhat, i.e.,
obtaining an acknowledgement from the user. Ans. 14; also see ¶0065 of
Bhat.
The Examiner’s claim interpretation is reasonable, particularly in
view of Appellant’s own Specification. See Appellant’s Spec. ¶22, ¶33, and
Figure 4. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation that the
limitation “if said first URL is not part of said first set of URLs, obtaining an
acknowledgment from said first user that said first user is requesting to
access said first webpage,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claims 9 and 16 are met by the teachings of Bhat. See
¶0065 and ¶0082 of Bhat.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9, and 16 and their respective
dependent claims 2-7, 10-15, and 17-19 which were not separately argued.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-19
under 35 USC § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bhat.

Appeal 2010-006879
Application 11/026,877

7

CLAIMS 8 AND 20 REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C § 103(a) AS
RENDERED OBVIOUS OVER BHAT, REYNAR AND REICHE

With respect to dependent claims 8 and 20, Appellant merely argues
that the combinations of Bhat and Reynar and Bhat and Reiche do not
disclose “if said first URL is not part of said first set of URLs, obtaining an
acknowledgment from said first user that said first user is requesting to
access said first webpage,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 18-21. As
discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Bhat teaches this
limitation, and therefore we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and
20.

V. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting: (1) claims 1-7, and 9-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bhat; (2) claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bhat and Reynar; and (3) claim 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bhat and Reiche.

VI. DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

ELD