Ex Parte Gonda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 5, 2014

12273567 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte ODED GONDA, OFER RAZ, ALON KANTOR, URI BIALIK, and YOAV KIRSCH _____________ Appeal 2012-007171 Application 12/273,567 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1–27. We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Decuir1 and LeVasseur2 teaches “before sending, by a sender 1 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0129275 A1 (Sept. 12, 2002). 2 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0005717 A1 (Jan. 4, 2007). Appeal 2012-007171 Application 12/273,567 2 device, a vault-mail message containing sensitive content, removing said content from said vault-mail message” (emphasis ours) (hereinafter “disputed limitation”), as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 19. Br. 14. We disagree with the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Decuir and LeVasseur teaches the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the Examiner has not shown how Decuir and LeVasseur are interpreted to satisfy the claimed features, nor has the Examiner (Ans. 14–15) answered Appellants’ particular arguments (Br. 14–15). Further, the Examiner has not explained how the “encrypting the content” feature in Decuir teaches the disputed limitation or why encrypting the content would be “an analogous teaching to the removal of content by the sender.” Ans. 14. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and dependent claims 2–9, 11–18, and 20–27. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–27 is reversed. REVERSED msc