Ex Parte Peterson et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 10, 2019

14548782 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/548,782 11/20/2014
63203 7590
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
4420 Hotel Circle Court
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
01/14/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nathan J. Peterson
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.
RPS920140087-US-NP 8420
EXAMINER
ZOUBAIR, NOURA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2019 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NATHAN J. PETERSON, RUSSEL SPEIGHT VanBLON,
ARNOLD S. WEKSLER, and JOHN CARL MESE 1
Appeal 2018-003501
Application 14/548,782
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, and 27 through
35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lenovo Singapore PTE
Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-003501
Application 14/548,782
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a device that includes instructions to parse
the contents of a messaging account to identify and obscure personal
information in the messaging account. Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A device, comprising:
a processor; and
storage accessible to the processor and bearing instructions
executable by the processor to:
access a messaging account;
parse at least a first message of the messaging account to
identify personal information to at least obscure in the first
message;
permit access to the first message with personal
information at least obscured; and present at least one user
interface (UI) on a display accessible to the processor, the UI
comprising a setting that is selectable to configure the device to
automatically obscure personal information in messages
associated with the messaging account based on personal
information being identified.
App. Br. 24 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3, 17, 20, 27, 28, and 30
through 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over
Narayanaswami (US 2009/0019553, published January 15, 2009) and
Pittenger (US 2014/0033029, published January 30, 2014). Answer 3-17.
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
October 16, 2017, the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed February 12, 2018,
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed July 13, 2017, and the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed December 14, 2017.
2
Appeal 2018-003501
Application 14/548,782
The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 21, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Narayanaswami, Pittenger
and Vidal (US 2012/0324547, published Dec 20, 2012). Answer 17-24.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 8, 9, 14, 20, 21, and 32 through
35. However Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6, 11, 13, 17, and
27 through 31.
Rejection of independent claim 1, and the claims grouped with claim
1.
Appellants present several arguments directed to the rejection of
individual claims with respect to the obviousness rejections; and Appellants
argue the Examiner has not provided an adequate rationale to support the
conclusion of obviousness. App. Br. 20-22. Specifically, Appellants argue:
Taking the rejection of Claim I as an example, the basis for the
proffered motivation to combine the references is that
Pittenger's system "overcomes the drawbacks of using
conventional redaction software" but does not appear to
explicitly discuss anything in relation to Narayanaswami. At
best, that amounts to nothing more than an allegation that a
PHOSITA could have made the proposed combinations once
presented with the references, not that a PHOSITA would have
been motivated to make the proposed combinations as proven
using evidence.
3
Appeal 2018-003501
Application 14/548,782
App Br. 22. As the issue presented by this argument is the only one
presented with respect to the rejection of many of the claims, we
consider it first.
The Examiner responds to Appellants' arguments by finding
that the secondary reference, Pittenger, teaches an improvement to an
element disclosed in the primary reference and thus provides the
motivation to combine the teachings of the references. Answer 28.
The Examiner finds that Pittenger teaches overcoming drawbacks of
using conventional redaction software where a user must manually
redact the document. Answer 28-29. Further, the Examiner finds that
this is describing an improvement to elements such as manual
redaction, discussed in Narayanaswami. Answer 29. We concur with
the Examiner. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
this response is not supported by evidence to show that
N arayanaswami includes manual redaction, and as such is insufficient
to show motivation. Reply Br. 12-14. While the Examiner's
statement on pages 28 and 29 of the Answer does not cite to teachings
in Narayanaswami, the detailed explanation of the rejection does cite
to several sections ofNarayanaswami, which discuss a user tagging
information ( manually selecting) to be designated as confidential and
to be obscured (redacted). See Answer 4 (citing Narayanaswami
para's 27, 28 and 30). We have reviewed the cited teachings of
N arayanaswami and find that there is sufficient evidence to support
the finding that the reference involves a user manually selecting data
to be redacted. We also note that paragraph 19 of N arayanaswami
provides additional support. Thus, we concur with the Examiner's
4
Appeal 2018-003501
Application 14/548,782
conclusion that the skilled artisan would combine the teachings of the
references as the Examiner has provided a reasoned rationale based
upon factual findings supported in the record. As Appellants'
arguments directed to this issue are the only arguments presented with
respect to independent claims 1 and 17, and dependent claims 2, 3, 6,
11, 13, and 27 through 31, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
these claims.
Rejection of dependent claim 32
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of claim 32, which
depends upon claim 1 7, is in error as the Examiner has not shown the
references teach sorting a message into a folder for messages that
have been identified as having personal information. App. Br. 10-11,
Reply Br. 2. Appellants' argue that Figure 9 and the discussion in
paragraph 47 of Pittenger, which the Examiner relies on to teach this
feature, does not support the finding that the reference teaches the
claim term. Appellants argue Pittenger teaches a view for each
instance of content that is rendered, but does not teach that the
document containing the content is sorted into a view or that the
document is sorted into a folder. App. Br. 10-12, Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner responds to Appellants' arguments stating the
"the terms 'sorting into a folder' have been interpreted as 'placing into
a folder' and as such the view 170 in Figure 9 ... Note that view 170
of Figure 9 shows the documents themselves ... and not only the
content of these documents." Answer 25.
We disagree with the Examiner's finding that the view 170 of
Figure 9 teaches sorting a message into a folder for messages that
5
Appeal 2018-003501
Application 14/548,782
have been identified as having personal information. As argued by
Appellants, Pittenger teaches folders as separate from a view, and the
documents are not sorted into the view, rather the view just contains
an indication of which documents contain the information.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 32.
Rejection of independent claim 20
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown that the
combination of the references teaches instructions to obfuscate and
remove information in a first message based on the first message
being opened a first time as recited in claim 20.
The Examiner responds to Appellants' arguments stating:
[T]he claim does not limit the action of 'opening' as being
performed by the sender ( first user) or the recipient ( second
user) and therefore a pre-view or pre-redaction view of a
message by a sender to perform redaction has been interpreted
as a first view as opposed to a view occurring after a preview or
as opposed to a post-redaction view which teach a subsequent
or second view. Therefore redaction is performed based on the
first message being opened a first time.
Answer 26.
We disagree with the Examiner as we find the Examiner's
claim interpretation is in error. Claim 20 states "based on a receipt of
a first message ... based on the first message being opened a first
time." Thus, the claim does recite that the message being opened a
first time is the received message and not the sender opening in a pre-
view or pre-redaction view as interpreted by the Examiner. As the
Examiner's finding of obviousness is based upon an improper claim
interpretation, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection
6
Appeal 2018-003501
Application 14/548,782
of independent claim 20. Claims 21, 33, 34, and 35 depend upon
claim 20; accordingly, we similarly do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of these claims.
Rejection of dependent claims 8 and 9
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown that the
combination of the references teaches instructions to delete one or more
messages containing personal information in response to the identification of
personal information as recited in dependent claim 8. App. Br. 16-17.
Appellants similarly argue that the combination of the references does not
teach instructions to delete a message attachment as recited in claim 9.
The Examiner provides the same response for both claims 8 and 9,
stating that "viewing only a portion of the email messages and being unable
to view the other portion, as in Vidal, may be interpreted as omitting or
deleting the other portion." Answer 27. We disagree with the Examiner's
claim interpretation, as the Examiner has not shown that this interpretation is
consistent with Appellants' Specification or presented evidence to support
this claim interpretation. Further, as argued by Appellants, the plain
meaning of deleting is different from restricting access, or not displaying, a
portion of information. Reply Brief 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 9.
Rejection of dependent claims 14 and 29
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not shown that the
combination of the references teaches parsing the contents of the message
account at intervals to identify personal information to at least obscure in the
7
Appeal 2018-003501
Application 14/548,782
messaging account, as recited in claims 14 and 29. Appellants argue that
Vidal, which the Examiner relies upon to teach this feature, is concerned
with periodically checking time restrictions for a friend user's login
credential and not an interval to parse the messages as claimed. App. Br.
19--20; Reply Br. 9-10.
The Examiner states in response that "applying a filter to a messaging
account at pre-defined intervals to determine what portion may be accessed
by a user discloses parsing the messaging account at intervals." Answer 28.
We disagree with the Examiner. Claim 14 and claim 29 recite parsing the
contents of the account at intervals to identify information. As argued by
Appellants, the disclosure of Vidal cited by the Examiner, paragraphs 141
and 142 (see Answer 22), discuss time and date restrictions (time intervals)
on login, i.e. account access is being evaluated, not the content of the
account as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 14 and 29.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 3, 6, 11, 13,
17 and 27 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8, 9, 14, 20, 21 and 32
through 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8