Hong Li et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 25, 2019

14968178 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2019)

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.
14/968,178 12/14/2015 Hong Li P45295C 4849
88032 7590 09/25/2019
Jordan IP Law, LLC
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
EXAMINER
RAHIM, MONJUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2019 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):
admin@jordaniplaw.com
info@jordaniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte HONG LI, ALAN D. ROSS, RITA H. WOUHAYBI,
and TOBIAS M. KOHLENBERG
________________

Appeal 2018-004917
Application 14/968,178
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2–21. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Claims 2–21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Hansknecht (US 9,092,540 B2; July 28, 2015) and Hegli (US
2014/0330759 A1; Nov. 6, 2014). Final Act. 3–9.
We reverse.

Appeal 2018-004917
Application 14/968,178

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “intelligent aggregation of platform
device interaction information associated with web applications.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 2 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the key disputed
limitation emphasized:
2. An apparatus comprising:
a browser interface to detect a browser request that is to
be issued from a browser of a platform for remote web content,
wherein the web content is to be presented on the platform in
response to the browser request; and
a security module to:
determine interaction information including a web
content call to a hardware component of the platform by
the web content during one or more of a retrieval of the
web content and a presentation of the web content on the
platform; and
in response to determination of the interaction
information:
generate a risk profile based on the
interaction information to document a risk
associated with access by the web content to the
hardware component of the platform; and
disallow the access by the web content to the
hardware component of the platform.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).

Appeal 2018-004917
Application 14/968,178

3
ANALYSIS
Contentions
The Examiner finds Hansknecht and Hegli teach all limitations of
claim 2. Final Act. 3–4. In particular, the Examiner finds Hansknecht
teaches most limitations of claim 2. Final Act. 3. Further, the Examiner finds
Hegli teaches claim 2’s recitation of
in response to determination of the interaction
information:
generate a risk profile based on the
interaction information to document a risk
associated with access by the web content to the
hardware component of the platform; and
disallow the access by the web content to the
hardware component of the platform.
Final Act. 3 (citing Hegli ¶ 50). The Examiner reasons:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made filed to include the
method of webpage/browser analysis of Hansknecht with the
risk profiling process disclosed in Ranadive [sic] because in
order to prevent malicious system call to access computer
resource from the webpage.
Final Act. 3.
Among arguments, Appellants present the following principal
argument:
Appellant[s] maintain[] that Hansknecht and Hegli are silent
regarding to disallow access by web content to a hardware
component of a platform, as claimed. Instead, Hansknecht and
Hegli at most teach “the present invention would prevent an
end user client from accessing the Internet resource since its
reputation index is deemed unsafe.” See e.g., Hegli, paragraph
[0085]. (Emphasis added).
App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 5–6.
Appeal 2018-004917
Application 14/968,178

4
In response to this argument, the Examiner explains “[i]n Hegli we
see a request is transmitted to the database/data-storage (hardware
component) in order to retrieve Internet resource/data and based on the
reputation value, whether to permit or deny the access request and which is
exactly as the claim limitation of claim 2.” Ans. 4 (citing Hegli ¶¶ 72, 94)

Our Review
Hansknecht discloses:
The invention includes a thick-client hardware compatibility
wrapper (HCW), which renders web-based applications and
manages communication between hardware functionality and
the web-based application. Specifically, the HCW monitors the
web-based application and identifies commands to the hardware
components of the mobile device. These commands are
interpreted by the HCW, which then uses native calls to
perform the hardware-specific activities.
Hansknecht, Abstract.
Thus, Hansknecht discloses allowing web content to access the
hardware via a compatibility wrapper. Missing from this is claim 2’s
recitation of “in response to determination of the interaction information. . .
disallow[ing] the access by the web content to the hardware component of
the platform.” See Final Act. 3.
Hegli discloses:
The method also includes receiving the request for the Internet
resource at a security appliance of the local area network prior
to transmission of the request over the Internet. . . . The method
also includes transmitting a decision transmission to the
Internet-enabled client application of the client-side device. The
decision transmission allows or denies access to the Internet
resource.
Hegli ¶ 50; see also Hegli ¶¶ 72, 94.
Appeal 2018-004917
Application 14/968,178

5
Thus, Hegli discloses allowing or denying (disallowing) access to web
content. Hegli is discussing access to the web content. This is in contrast to
the web content making a call to a hardware component of the platform.
Further, although Hegli does consider the reputation of the Internet resource,
we do not readily see any explanation that this reputation considers
interaction information including a call to a hardware component. Because
Hegli’s Internet resource is not making a call to the hardware component of
the platform, there cannot be any “disallow[ing] the access by the web
content to the hardware component of the platform.” For these reasons, we
find Hegli does not teach the key disputed limitation.
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner refers to Hegli’s transmitted
request as being transmitted to a hardware component. See Ans. 4. This is
different than the disputed limitation because Hegli’s Internet resource is not
making a call to the hardware component of the platform; rather, Hegli is
describing the platform transmitting a request for access to an Internet
resource.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. We
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–9, which depend
from claim 2.
Independent claims 10 and 18 recite the same key disputed limitation.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 18.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11–17 and 19–
21, which variously depend from claims 10 and 18.

Appeal 2018-004917
Application 14/968,178

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2–21 is reversed.

REVERSED