Ex Parte VÄHÄ-SIPILÄ et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

13071209 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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.
13/071,209 03/24/2011 Antti Oskari VAHA-SIPILA P5010US01 3546
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
LE, KHOI V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTTI OSKARIVAHA-SPIPILA, HENRI TAPANI KUJALA,
MIKKO ANTERO NIVA, and IAN JUSTIN OLIVER
Appeal 2015-005261
Application 13/071,209
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to
An approach for maintaining user privacy information is
described. A privacy management platform determines a request,
from one or more applications, for access to local data associated
with a device. The platform then determines and processes one
or more privacy profile objects associated with the local data to
determine one or more privacy policies associated with the local
data, the device, or a combination thereof. Enforcement of the
Appeal 2016-005261
Application 13/071,209
one or more privacy policies is then caused for granting access
to the local data.
Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or
processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one
signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one
signal based, at least in part, on the following:
a request, received at a user device from one or more
applications, for access to local data stored at the device;
one or more privacy profile objects specifying one or more
access characteristics to the local data, the device, or a
combination thereof;
a processing of the one or more privacy profile objects to
determine one or more privacy policies for a user of the device
with respect to the access to the local data, access to the device,
or a combination thereof; and
at least one enforcement of the one or more privacy
policies by the user device for granting the access to the local
data to the one or more applications, wherein the at least one
enforcement of the one or more privacy policies includes
determining to apply at least one transformation to the local data,
wherein the access is granted to the transformed local data.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA),
second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor
regards as the invention. Final Act. 6—7.
The Examiner rejected claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-14, 16—18, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Herz (US 2010/0233996 Al;
1 We note that although the Examiner does not identify claims 2—10 as
indefinite, these claims depend from claim 1.
2
Appeal 2016-005261
Application 13/071,209
published Sept. 16, 2010) and Lyons (US 2009/0320089 Al; published Dec.
24,2009). Final Act. 7-19.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 9, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Herz, Lyons, and Lim (US 2008/0301760 Al;
published Dec. 4, 2008). Final Act. 19—24.
ANALYSIS
The Indefiniteness Rejection
Claim 1
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as indefinite.
The Examiner finds that:
The step of ‘ facilitating a processing of is the only one step in
the method claim which is unclear as to what processing of to be
facilitated and what part is based on. There is no further
discussion in the specification as to what processing of to be
facilitated and what part is based on. It is unclear as to what part
of “a request, one or more privacy profile objects, a processing
of one or more privacy profile objects, at least one enforcement
of the one or more privacy profile policies''’ is based on when
facilitating a processing of data.
Final Act. 6. In other words, it is unclear as to what “facilitating a
processing” means within the context of the claim and further it is unclear
whether the data, information, and/or at least one signal is based in part on
any one of the listed limitations or based in part on ah the listed limitations.
Appellants fail to persuasively respond to these findings. Namely,
Appellants merely repeat the language of the claim and generically assert
that a skilled artisan, under the standard set forth in Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig
Instruments, 134 S.Ct. 2120 (2014), would understand the meaning of the
claim. See App. Br. 11—12. Notably absent, though, is any persuasive
3
Appeal 2016-005261
Application 13/071,209
explanation or clarification as to the meaning of the claim.2 As such, we are
not persuaded of error and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
indefinite.
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Herz and Lyons
Claims 1—4, 6—8, 10—14, 16—18, and 20
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—8, 10-14, 16—18, and 20 as
unpatentable over Herz and Lyons.
Appellants contend that the combination of Herz and Lyons fails to
teach or suggest “a request, received at a user device from one or more
applications, for access to local data stored at the device,” as recited in
claims 1 and 11. App. Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 1—3. According to Appellants,
Herz’s request is sent from the user, not the application, as required by the
claim and the application data is stored on a server not on a user’s device.
Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 15.
The Examiner, however, explains Herz describes updating an
application store stored locally on the mobile device. See Ans. 5; see also
Herz 13. As such, in using the local stored application, a user would send a
request, through the application on the mobile device, to access data that is
stored locally within the mobile device. Ans. 5. In other words, the
2 We also note that “when the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded
rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous,
vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining
the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicant fails to provide a
satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to
meet the statutory requirements of § 112(b).” MPEP § 2173.02(1) (quoting
In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
4
Appeal 2016-005261
Application 13/071,209
Examiner does not rely on the request sent from the mobile device to the
server but rather the use of the local application on the mobile device by the
user. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Herz at least suggests a
request, received at a user device from one or more applications, for access
to local data stored at the device, as required by claims 1 and 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 11,
as well as 2-4, 6—8, 10, 12—14, 16—18, and 20, not argued with particularity,
as unpatentable over Herz and Lyons.
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Herz, Lyons, and Lim
Claims 5, 9, 15, and 19
Appellants present no separate argument of patentability for claims 5,
9, 15, and 19 and instead rely on the arguments presented for claim 1. See
App. Br. 16. As such, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 9, 15, and 19 as unpatentable over Herz,
Lyons, and Lim.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5