Ex Parte Scipioni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2013

11365644 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GERMAN SCIPIONI and AVERY KADISON
____________________

Appeal 2011-003724
Application 11/365,644
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-003724
Application 11/365,644

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 4–17, 20–34, and 37–41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
The claims are directed to protecting information by disabling
automatic form fill on a user interface determined to be associated with
fraudulent activity. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed
limitation italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a parser to
parse user interface information to be included
within a user interface to be displayed to a user by an
information display application; and
to identify at least one field, within the user
interface, to receive user information from a user;
a detection module to determine whether the user
interface information is associated with fraudulent activity;
a memory storage device to store the user information
and the user interface information; and
a form fill module,
in response to determining that the user interface is
associated with the fraudulent activity,
to provide a warning indicia in or over the at least
one field, when the user interface is presented to the user
by the information display application,
wherein the form fill module is to enable automatic
provision of the user information into the at least one field in
response to determining that the user interface is not associated
with fraudulent activity, and is to disable automatic provision
of the user information into the at least one field in response to
determining that the user interface is associated with the
fraudulent activity.
Appeal 2011-003724
Application 11/365,644

3
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sidles
Metzger
Dixon
US 2002/0062342 A1
US 2005/0182667 A1
US 2006/0253582 A1
May 23, 2002
Aug. 18, 2005
Nov. 9, 2006

Rejection
Claims 1, 4–17, 20–34, and 37–41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dixon, Metzger, and Sidles. Ans. 3–16.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief. We refer to the Brief and the Answer for the
respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner.
Appellants argue all claims as a group. Br. 12–15. Appellants argue
that Dixon does not teach “disabl[ing the] automatic provision of the user
information into the at least one field in response to determining that the user
interface is associated with the fraudulent activity” as recited in claim 1. See
id. The Examiner cites paragraph 189 and figures 12–17 as teaching this
limitation. Ans. 4, 18–19. At paragraph 189, Dixon discloses classifying
web sites into categories, one of which is “Fraudulent,” and, in which case,
“the browser should not load any more of the current page . . . .” Dixon, ¶
189. The Examiner finds this “effectively disables form filling module and
its functionality. . . .” Ans. 18 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded that, to one skilled in the art, Dixon’s teaching
that the browser should not load any more of the current page in response to
Appeal 2011-003724
Application 11/365,644

4
a web site being classified as fraudulent (¶ 189) does not at least suggest
“disabl[ing the] automatic provision of the user information into the at least
one field in response to determining that the user interface is associated with
the fraudulent activity” as recited in claim 1. Appellants do not persuade us
of error in the Examiner’s findings, including that when the browser in
Dixon stops loading, software modules running current activities such as
form-filling are terminated. Ans. 18–19 (referring to Dixon, figs. 11–17,
¶¶ 189, 353, and the Specification generally). Appellants’ argument that
“[w]ithout explicitly disabling a user from providing information to the
already downloaded field, the user can make data entries to the downloaded
field and expose or compromise the entered data” (Br. 14) is unpersuasive
because the claim is not directed to user data entry. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of all pending claims.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1, 4–17, 20–34, and 37–41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dixon, Metzger, and Sidles.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–17, 20–
34, and 37–41 is affirmed.

Appeal 2011-003724
Application 11/365,644

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD