Ex Parte Reeder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2016

13112419 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2016)

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.
13/112,419 05/20/2011 Robert Wilson Reeder 332406.01 7440
69316 7590 12/22/2016
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
CHEN, SHIN HON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2016 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT WILSON REEDER and ADAM SHOSTACK
Appeal 2016-000685
Application 13/112,4191
Technology Center 2400
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20 which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-000685
Application 13/112,419
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to outputting authentic timing
indicators to convey security related information to a user, and in particular
using timing to call the user’s attention to the authentic timing indicators.
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as
follows:
1. In a computing environment, a method performed at least
in part on at least one processor, comprising:
determining from security-related information associated
with content which state of a plurality of available states is
associated with the content; and
for at least one of the states, outputting an authentic timing
indicator corresponding to that state when the content is
associated with that state and when a trusted program is in
control of a content output area, before allowing the content to
control the content output area of the trusted program.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 10, and 12-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as anticipated by Abdulhayoglu (US 2010/0275024 Al; Oct. 28,
2010). Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Abdulhayoglu. Final Act. 5-8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
2
Appeal 2016-000685
Application 13/112,419
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
anticipated by Abdulhayoglu because Abdulhayoglu does not disclose
“outputting an authentic timing indicator . . . before allowing the content to
control the content output area of the trusted program.” See Br. 8-14.2 In
particular, Appellants argue Abdulhayoglu discloses validating a site’s
certificate after at least some of that site’s content is downloaded and
rendered. Br. 12. Appellants argue Abdulhayoglu discloses the browser
navigating to an unsecured portion of a site prior to navigating to a secured
portion of the site and, therefore, the site, not a trusted program, is in control
of the content output area. Id. Appellants further argue Abdulhayoglu
discloses a web browser that performs a series of validation procedures on
content downloaded from a website before displaying an information
indicator and, therefore, the content is already in control of the browser
when the information indicator is displayed, not the trusted program. Br. 9.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Appellants
argue Abdulhayoglu does not disclose a “trusted program is in control of a
content output area” because the unsecured and secured content portions are
both part of a single website. Br. 12. However, nothing in claim 1 requires
2 Appellants’ Appeal Brief does not include page numbers and the
pagination listed in the Table of Contents appears to be incorrect. See, e.g.,
Table of Contents listing for Conclusion (page 20). Accordingly, citations to
the Appeal Brief may conflict with Appellants’ Table of Contents.
3
Appeal 2016-000685
Application 13/112,419
that the secured and unsecured content be part of different websites. Instead,
claim 1 recites a “trusted program” is in control of the “content output area”
when the authentic timing indicator is output before allowing the “content”
to control the content output area of the trusted program. Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, claim 1 does not require the unsecured and secured
portions of content to be from wholly unrelated websites.
In addition, Appellants’ argument regarding the timing of the
information indicators is unfounded. Abdulhayoglu discloses a web browser
navigating to a website 12 that is unsecured. Abdulhayoglu 127. A secure
plug-in attempts to connect to a secured portion of the site 14.
Abdulhayoglu 128. The plug-in downloads a digital certificate for the
secure site 14. Abdulhayoglu 129. If the digital certificate passes the
desired checks, the plug-in “can display information indicators 8 on the
client’s web browser 4 while the browser remains navigated to the non-
secured site 12.” Abdulhayoglu 134. In other words, Abdulhayoglu
discloses remaining on the unsecure site 12 while the information indicators
are displayed navigating to the secured site 14 only after such indicators are
displayed. Accordingly, Abdulhayoglu discloses outputting an “authentic
timing indicator . . . before allowing the content to control the content output
area of the trusted program.”
Therefore, on this record and for the reasons set forth, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1. Appellants argue the patentability of independent claim
12 for the same reasons as claim 1. Br. 15. Independent claim 18 recites, in
relevant part, “rendering at least some of the content in a second period of
time that begins after the first period of time begins.” Appellants argue
Abdulhayoglu does not teach or suggest this limitation for substantially the
4
Appeal 2016-000685
Application 13/112,419
same reasons as the “outputting” limitation of claim 1. Br. 16-17. We are
not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments for the same reasons discussed
above. We, therefore, sustain the rejections of claims 12 and 18 for the same
reasons. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, 19,
and 20, which were not argued separately from their respective independent
claims. Br. 14, 16, 19.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20.
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
5