Ex Parte SinghDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 11, 201411421366 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation