Ex Parte Singh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2014

11421366 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2014)

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.
11/421,366 05/31/2006 Mona Singh 27592-01344-US 2476
30678 7590 03/12/2014
NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP
1875 EYE STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1100
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
CONYERS, DAWAUNE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2014 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 MONA SINGH
____________________

Appeal 2011-012507
Application 11/421,366
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012507
Application 11/421,366

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “a method and system for
automatically applying presentation attributes to a resource based on
attributes of a user environment in which the resource is presented”
(Spec., para. [0015]).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for automatically determining a sensitivity
level of a resource, the method comprising:
[a] monitoring attributes of a user environment in
which a first instance of information related to a resource is
presented to a user;
[b] determining attributes of the resource for which
the first instance of information is presented;
[c] detecting a user-initiated change in a presentation
attribute of the instance of information;
[d] following detection of the user-initiated change in
the presentation attribute, storing the user environment
attributes and the changed presentation attribute in association
with the resource; and
[e] automatically determining a sensitivity level of the
resource based on the detected user-initiated change in the

1 Our decision will refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed March 11,
2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 19, 2011).
Appeal 2011-012507
Application 11/421,366

3
presentation attribute and the user environment attributes,
wherein at least one of the preceding actions is performed by at
least one electronic hardware component.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1, 14, 15, 16, 25-30, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hind (US 6,918,039 B1, iss. Jul. 12, 2005) and
Elms (US 2004/0015729 A1, pub. Jan. 22, 2004).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hind, Elms, and Redlich (US 2005/0132070 A1, pub. Jun. 16, 2005).
Claims 4-10, 17, 20-24, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hind, Elms, and Theimer (US 5,493,692,
iss. Feb. 20, 1996).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hind, Elms, Theimer, and Noguera (US 6,847,351 B2, iss. Jan. 25, 2005).
Claims 12, 18, 19, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hind, Elms, Theimer, and Stein (US 6,971,072 B1,
iss. Nov. 29, 2005).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Hind, Elms, Theimer, Stein, and Deutscher (US 2003/0174160 A1,
pub. Sep. 18, 2003).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hind, Elms, and Stein.

Appeal 2011-012507
Application 11/421,366

4
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 35
Appellant argues claims 1 and 35 together. We select claim 1 as
representative. Claim 35 stands or falls with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Addressing each of Appellant’s arguments in turn, Appellant first
argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
because neither Hind nor Elms discloses or suggests “detecting a user-
initiated change in a presentation attribute of the instance of information,”
i.e., limitation [c] of claim 1. The Examiner maintains that the rejection is
proper, and relies on Hind as disclosing this feature (Ans. 6 and 49-50, citing
Hind, Abstract, figs. 5A and 5B, col. 6, ll. 1-65, and col. 7, ll. 10-35 as
disclosing a user-selected operating environment). We agree with the
Examiner.
Hind discloses a method and apparatus in a data processing system for
detecting the need for data security and for presenting, i.e., rendering,
sensitive data in a secured manner (see Hind, Abstract and col. 6, ll. 1-65).
Hind describes that selection of an appropriate rendering method depends on
the applicable security policy and the operating environment in which the
recipient device is located (see Hind, col. 6, ll. 3-24 and 57-65 and col. 7, ll.
10-35). For example, a “confidential” security policy may allow the display
of sensitive data in a secure area but require speaking the data into a speaker
device in an ear canal of the recipient when the recipient is in an unsecure
area (see Hind, col. 6, ll. 3-14). Hind outlines various ways for
automatically determining if the recipient is in a secured environment,
e.g., by determining the location of the data processing system using GPS,
Appeal 2011-012507
Application 11/421,366

5
and describes that the operating environment also may be a user selected
value, e.g., a control such as a radio button or a switch may be provided
which the user can set to a particular value (Hind, col. 6, ll. 25-37).
Pointing to the paragraph starting at column 6, line 37 of Hind,
Appellant asserts that user selection of the operating environment does not
disclose or suggest “a user-initiated change in a presentation attribute of the
instance of information,” because user selection of the operating
environment of the device necessarily occurs before presentation of the
message containing the information to be displayed according to the selected
operating environment (Br. 27-28). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive
at least because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Claim 1 is directed to a method for automatically determining a
sensitivity level of a resource. Not only is it true that claim 1 does not recite
a temporal relationship between “detecting a user-initiated change in a
presentation attribute of the instance of information” and presenting,
i.e., displaying, information, but claim 1 does not recite a “presenting” step
at all.
Appellant’s further argument, i.e., that the “operating environment” in
Hind relates to the device, whereas claim 1 requires a user-initiated change
in a “presentation attribute of the instance of information” (Br. 27), is
similarly unpersuasive. Hind discloses that the “operating environment”
affects how individual data elements are presented (see Ans. 6, citing Hind
at col. 7, ll. 10-35), and, as such, clearly discloses a “user-initiated change in
a presentation attribute of the instance of information,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellant next argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Elms fails to disclose “automatically
Appeal 2011-012507
Application 11/421,366

6
determining a sensitivity level of the resource based on the detected user-
initiated change in the presentation attribute . . . .,” i.e., limitation [e] of
claim 1 (Br. 28). Appellant asserts that “Elms performs all actions regarding
display of information based on the security and location information” and
that “[t]here is nothing in Elms that discloses or even suggests that anything
occurs ‘based on the detected user-initiated change in the presentation
attribute’ as recited in the instant claims” (id.). We disagree.
Elms discloses a sensitive display system that allows for mediation of
content provided from a source to a recipient, e.g., intercepting and
augmenting the content so as to restrict or otherwise control information
displayed on a display of the recipient device (Elms, Abstract). Elms
describes that security and location information is used in determining what,
if any, information should be restricted from display (see Elms,
paras. [0036] and [0039]), and also describes that users may indicate
relocation of themselves or other users by moving the corresponding icons
within the location monitor (see Elms, para. [0063]). We agree with the
Examiner that moving icons within the location monitor is a “user-initiated
change in the presentation attribute” used in determining how information is
presented, i.e., in “determining a sensitivity level of the resource”
(Ans. 50-51).
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
rejection of claim 1 should be reversed because neither Hind nor Elms
discloses or suggests “following detection of the user-initiated change in the
presentation attribute, storing the user environment attributes and the
changed presentation attribute in association with the resource,”
i.e., limitation [d], as recited in claim 1 (Br. 29-30).
Appeal 2011-012507
Application 11/421,366

7
Appellant first argues that “[t]here is nothing in Elms that discloses or
even suggests that anything occurs ‘following detection on [sic] the user-
initiated change in the presentation attribute’ as recited in the instant claims”
(Br. 29). However, Elms teaches that a user may initiate a change in
location, i.e., a “user-initiated change in the presentation attribute,” and that
relevant security and user location information is collected and stored for use
in determining what, if any, information should be restricted from being
displayed (see Ans. 7 and 54-55, citing Elms, paras. [0036], [0039], [0063],
and [0064]).
Appellant next argues that, even if Elms discloses that security and
user information is stored, “[t]here is nothing in the cited section of Elms
that discloses a storing of the elements in association with the resource”
(Br. 29). That argument fares no better.
Elms describes that the mediator accesses relevant information,
including security information relative to information that is currently
displayed on the browser; a location of the browser; and security
classification(s) of all users within a predetermined area of the browser, and
that the mediator is, thus, able to modify the information displayed on the
browser to restrict the display of classified, secure, or otherwise private
information (see Elms, para. [0034]). As such, Elms discloses that an
association exists between the displayed content, i.e., the claimed resource,
and the security and location information that Elms describes is collected
and stored.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 35, which stands or falls with claim 1.
Appeal 2011-012507
Application 11/421,366

8
Independent claims 14, 26, and 36
Appellant argues claims 14, 26, and 36 together. We select claim 14
as representative. Claims 26 and 36 stand or fall with claim 14. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
In addition to the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 1
(which we found unpersuasive), Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Hind, on which the
Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest “associating the changed user
environment attribute and the changed presentation attribute with the
resource,” as recited in claim 14 (Br. 30-31).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Hind discloses that the
operating environment of the device, i.e., the recited user environment
attribute, may be automatically derived by the device itself, e.g., via GPS, or
the operating environment may be a user selected value, i.e., the recited
“user-initiated change in a presentation attribute” (see Hind, col. 6, ll. 25-
32). Hind also discloses that selection of an appropriate method for
rendering sensitive data, i.e., the claimed resource, is made based on the
operating environment (see, e.g., Hind, col. 7, ll. 6-10), which may change
according to a user’s location or may be changed explicitly by the user. As
such, we agree with the Examiner that Hind discloses “associating the
changed user environment attribute and the changed presentation attribute
with the resource,” as recited in claim 14 (Ans. 9-10, citing Hind, Abstract,
figs. 5A and 5B, col. 6, ll. 1-65, and col. 7, ll. 10-35).
Appellant argues that in Hind, “the operating environment of the
device changes the manner in which all information from all resources will
be presented. Therefore, nothing is associated with the resource in Hind”
Appeal 2011-012507
Application 11/421,366

9
(Br. 31). Yet because the operating environment is associated with all
information from all resources, it necessarily follows that the operating
environment must be associated with any selected resource, i.e., the resource
currently being considered, as called for in claim 14.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 26 and 36, which stand or fall with claim 14.
Dependent claims 2-13, 15-25, and 27-34
Each of claims 2-13, 15-25, and 27-34 depends from one of
independent claims 1, 14, and 26. Appellant does not present any arguments
for the patentability of the dependent claims except to assert that the claims
are allowable based on their dependence on claims 1, 14, and 26.
We are not persuaded for the reasons set forth above that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 14, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-13, 15-25,
and 27-34.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls