Ex Parte DYKSTRA

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 22, 2016

13033965 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/033,965 02/24/2011 DARRELL J. DYKSTRA 119741 7590 02/24/2016 Keller Jolley Preece I Adobe 1010 North 500 East, Suite 210 North Salt Lake, UT 84054 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. 20030.521 9902 EXAMINER CELANI, NICHOLAS P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2449 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/24/2016 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): docketing@kjpip.com gjolley@kjpip.com tkusitor@kjpip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DARRELL J. DYKSTRA Appeal2014-000631 Application 13/033,965 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 14--18. and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to "to a method and apparatus for correctly binding form objects to encrypted XML data." Specification 1. Appeal2014-000631 Application 13/033,965 Representative Claim 1. A computer implemented method for correctly binding form objects to encrypted XML data, comprising: examining at least one data description stored in a set of replacement properties for a set of encrypted XML data, wherein each data description is associated with an encrypted data element from the set of encrypted XML data; and binding form objects to encrypted data elements of the set of encrypted XML data using the at least one data description, wherein the binding comprises binding a particular form object to a corresponding encrypted data element of the set of encrypted XML data when the particular form object would have bound to a descendent of an unencrypted version of the corresponding encrypted data element of the set of encrypted data. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 17, 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Getting All XML Elements, http://www.roseindia.netixmlldomIDOMElements.shtm, posted June 8, 2007 (last visited 9/27/2012), XivIL Encryption Syntax and Processing (W3C Recommendation, December 10, 2002), http://www. w3. org/TRlxmlenc-core/#sec-EncryptionProperties (last visited 10/1/2012), and XForms 1.1, (W3C Recommendation, October 20, 2009), http://www.w3.org/TRixforms/# idref-resolve-bind (last visited 10/2/2012). Answer 5-12. Claims 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Getting All XML Elements, XML Encryption Syntax and Processing, XForms 1.1, and Bhargavan (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0268326 Al published December 1, 2005). Answer 12-16. 2 Appeal2014-000631 Application 13/033,965 ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 27, 2013), the Answer (mailed August 7, 2013) and the Final Rejection (mailed February 4, 2013) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Independent claims 1 and 1 7 Appellant argues the Examiner's belief that the claimed invention contemplates explicit-binding is erroneous because "it is Appellants' [sic] belief that implicit binding is explicitly disclosed in the originally filed specification." Appeal Brief 8. Appellant cites paragraphs 25 and 38 of the Specification as well as Figure 4 for support in the assertion that the implicit binding is disclosed in the original filed Specification. Appeal Brief 8. However, we do not find Appellant's argument persuasive of Examiner error because the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The claims do not indicate whether the binding is explicit or implicit. Further, Appellant is extrapolating subject matter from both the Specification 3 Appeal2014-000631 Application 13/033,965 and the Figures that are not present in the claims. 1 Therefore we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 17. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 18 and 20 Appellant appears to argue dependent claims separately. Appeal Brief 13-18. However, Appellant's arguments center on the improper rejection of independent claims 1 and 17. Therefore we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 18 and 20 because we do not find the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1and17 erroneous. See Answer 18-25. Independent Claim 11 Appellant argues claim 11 recites features similar to those in independent claim 1 and the additional reference cited by the Examiner, Bhargavan, fails to cure the deficiency of the cited combination. Appeal Brief 20. We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 11 because we do not find the cited combination deficient as Appellant asserts. Dependent claims 7, 8, 12, and 14-16 Appellant appears to argue dependent claims separately. Appeal Brief 20-25. However, Appellant's arguments center on the improper rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 and therefore we sustain the Examiner's 1 Although giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation must take into account any definitions given in the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), it is improper to read into the claims limitations from examples given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). 4 Appeal2014-000631 Application 13/033,965 rejection of dependent claims 7, 8, 12 and 14--16 because we do not find the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1and11 erroneous. See Answer 25-27. DECISION The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-3, 5-12, 14--18 and 20 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 5