Ex Parte Parkinson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2017

11809251 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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. 11/809,251 05/31/2007 Steven W. Parkinson 05220.181 (PI 60) 9358 14400 7590 03/27/2017 Patent Dneket AHminisitratnr EXAMINER LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP 65 Livingston Avenue PATEL, ASHOKKUMAR B Roseland, NJ 07068 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN W. PARKINSON Appeal 2016-006127 Application 11/809,251 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-006127 Application 11/809,251 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1— 3, 5—7, 9-15, and 17—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to browser-initiated reporting of fraud. A web browser contacts a remote server that monitors web site safety and provides a universal resource locator (URL) for a web site the client is about to access. The web site safety or tracking server checks its database for reports of issues related to the URL and provides information on any such issues. The user of the web browser can then make an informed decision about whether to continue the access of the website associated with the URL. See Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter with the disputed limitation highlighted: 1. A method comprising: receiving, at a processing device, user information of each of a plurality of remote client applications, wherein the user information is collected by a network resource identified by a first address; detecting, by the processing device, from each of the plurality remote client applications, a respective indication of a fraudulent activity, wherein the fraudulent activity comprises forwarding the user information to a second address, wherein the second address is different from the first address of the network resource', storing, by the processing device, the respective indications of the fraudulent activity in a database associated with the network resource and aggregating the respective indications with previously received indications of the fraudulent activity from other remote client applications; 2 Appeal 2016-006127 Application 11/809,251 generating, by the processing device, a value representing a level of safety associated with the network resource, the value generated in view of the aggregated indications of the fraudulent activity; and providing, by the processing device, the value representing the level of safety associated with the network resource to one of the plurality of remote client applications, the one of the plurality of remote client applications to compare the value with a user-created profile to determine whether the network resource is safe. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Von-Maszewski US 2006/0130147 A1 June 15, 2006 Farley US 7,089,428 B2 Aug. 8, 2006 Dixon US 2006/0253582 A1 Nov. 9, 2006 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1—3, 5—7, 9-15, and 17—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Von-Maszewski in view of Dixon and further in view of Farley. ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the combination of Von-Maszewski, Dixon, and Farley teaches or suggests the limitations of: “wherein the fraudulent activity comprises forwarding the user information to a second address, wherein the second address is different from the first address of the network resource” 3 Appeal 2016-006127 Application 11/809,251 “generating, by the processing device, a value representing a level of safety associated with the network resource” as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). Appellant argues that even though Dixon teaches redirecting a user to another website, nothing in Dixon teaches or suggests that redirecting the user to another website includes forwarding the user information to the other website (App. Br. 8—9). We do not agree. At the outset, we note that Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Appellant argues that Dixon does not teach forwarding the user information to the other website, however claim 1 is broader in scope because it only recites a “second address” (see claim 1). Thus, any phishing of information and misdirection of the personal information would satisfy the claim. In other words, when fraudulent retrieval of personal information occurs, it will be for the purpose of sending it to the fraudulent user and as such it will be sent to a second address. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Dixon teaches a reputation service host monitoring a URF and when a user interacts with a 4 Appeal 2016-006127 Application 11/809,251 site wherein the service also monitors any request for personal information such as an email address and credit card (para. 91; Ans. 4). Dixon further teaches that website collected data include information regarding a website’s spoofing, phishing, analysis of links from the site, treatment of personal information, and misdirection (para. 96; Ans. 4). Dixon further discloses wherein the reputation service also monitors the URLs of content that are included in a page as well as the top level URL (para. 135). The reputation service of Dixon monitors the historic treatment of personal information, where that personal information is entered, and where a user’s personal information is misdirected (paras. 188, 192, and 250; Ans. 4). Appellant further argues that Farley fails to teach or even suggest the above-recited feature of “generating, by the processing device, a value representing a level of safety associated with the network resource, the value generated in view of the aggregated indications” as recited in independent claim 1. In particular, Appellant argues that Farley teaches that the fusion engine correlates raw (security) computer events that are related to each other, generates a message compiling these correlated security computer events, and sends the message to the client (col. 6,11. 16—30, 37-45, col. 10, 11. 9-34; App. Br. 10). Appellant argues that this message in Farley includes compiled correlated security computer events, but does not include a level of safety to a client (App. Br. 10). According to Appellant, Farley also teaches that the fusion engine may include a memory management list storing all raw events and a raw event-tracking index, which identifies which software objects may contain a particular raw event object in order to delete old raw events in the memory management list (col. 16,11. 1—18). Appellant further 5 Appeal 2016-006127 Application 11/809,251 argues that the raw event-tracking index of Farley identifies a specific raw event object, but does not include a level of safety to the client (App. Br. 10). We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Farley teaches risk assessment based on the multiple raw events that will indicate malicious or non-malicious status which represents the level of safety of a network device or action (Ans. 7; Final Act. 6; col. 6,11. 16-30, 37-A5, col. 10,11. 9-34, col. 15,11. 2A-30, col. 16,11. 1-18, and col. 20,11. 22-30). Appellant further argues that there is no motivation to combine Von- Maszewski and Dixon with Farley (App. Br. 12—14). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the suggestion to combine Von-Maszewski and Farley stems from the use of a central security management system that is capable of monitoring multiple remote individual computers as Von-Maszewski utilizes a central database for subscriber components (paras. 45 46) and Farley utilizes a security management system with a fusion engine that is centrally located (col. 6,11. 16—30, 37— 45 and col. 10,11. 9-34; Ans. 8). Both Von-Maszewski and Farley disclose the concept of detecting from a plurality of remote clients a respective indication of fraudulent activity utilizing a central server that receives information regarding detecting malicious activity from multiple remote sources and clients (Ans. 8). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that it would have also been obvious to combine the centrally located security management system as depicted in both Von-Maszewski and Farley with Dixon’s teaching of a reputation service host providing security services to remote users (para. 311; Ans. 9). They all teach a centrally located service that assists remote local clients with their network security 6 Appeal 2016-006127 Application 11/809,251 issues and the suggestion/motivation would have been Von-Maszewski’s teaching of a processing device receiving data from a plurality of clients regarding illegitimate communication behavior (paras. 37—39 and 46; Ans. 9). Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—3, 5—7, 9-15, and 17—25 not argued separately. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Von- Maszewski, Dixon, and Farley teaches or suggests the limitations of: “wherein the fraudulent activity comprises forwarding the user information to a second address, wherein the second address is different from the first address of the network resource” “generating, by the processing device, a value representing a level of safety associated with the network resource” as recited in claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 5—7, 9-15, and 17—25 is affirmed. 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 7