Ex Parte Calow et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 4, 201311128074 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte THOMAS JEFFREY CALOW, CHRISTOPH LUECKING, MARTING THOMAS MOORE, and MARY ELLEN ZURKO ____________________ Appeal 2010-0110751 Application 11/128,074 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corp. (App Br. 3.) Appeal 2010-011075 Application 11/128,074 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 17. Claims 3-5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18-20 have been canceled. (App. Br. 3.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for handling an electronic document within a collaborative software environment. ([0001].) In particular, upon determining that an identified document file type supports active content, the document is classified as being possibly compromised, and it is thereby restricted from being executed. ([0007], [0008], [0019], [0026], [0028].) Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as follows: 1. A method of handling electronic documents within an application program executing within a computer system, the method comprising: determining at least one safety parameter of an electronic document, wherein the at least one safety parameter comprises whether the electronic document is a file type that supports active content; classifying the electronic document based upon the at least one safety parameter; selecting a restriction policy, stored within the computer system, based upon said classifying step; and Appeal 2010-011075 Application 11/128,074 3 implementing the selected restriction policy for handling the electronic document, wherein determining, classifying, selecting, and implementing are performed and are executable by the computer system. Prior Art Relied Upon Margalit US 2003/0079142 A1 Apr. 24, 2003 Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Margalit. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 8-14. Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in finding that Margalit describes determining whether an electronic document within an application program has a file type that supports active content, as recited in claim 1? Appellants argue that Margalit does not describe the disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 8-9.) In particular, Appellants argue that while Margalit discloses comparing the digital object characteristics (e.g., header vs. a file extension) to determine if they match Appeal 2010-011075 Application 11/128,074 4 each other, the disclosed comparison is not used to indicate whether the document type supports active content as required by claim 1. (Id.) In response, the Examiner finds that Margalit’s disclosure of a digital object being a webpage discloses a file name extension (html/htm), which describes a file type supporting active content. (Ans. 5.) Based upon our review of the record before us, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding anticipation regarding claim 1. Margalit discloses a digital object selected from the set of a webpage, a file, an e-mail attachment, and a storage medium ([0012], [0042]) has certain characteristics (e.g., file name extension, header) ([0045], [0048]) that are compared with one another whereupon a mismatch occurring therebetween, the digital is classified as having malicious content, thereby causing the digital object to be subsequently discarded ([0057], [0058]). We note at the outset that Appellants have failed to particularly address the specific findings made by the Examiner in the Answer. Therefore, Appellants have failed to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s specific finding of anticipation. Further, we find that the malicious contents identified to be contained within Margalit’s webpage describe active contents associated with the webpage as identified by its file type (html file name extension). We are therefore satisfied that the cited disclosures of Margalit adequately describe the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Regarding claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 17, Appellants reiterate substantially the same arguments submitted for patentability of claim 1 above. (App. Br. 10-14.) As discussed above, these arguments are not Appeal 2010-011075 Application 11/128,074 5 persuasive. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(1)(vii). Further, while Appellants raised additional arguments for patentability of the cited claims, we find that the Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and every one of those arguments by a preponderance of the evidence. (Ans. 5-8.) Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference. Consequently, we have found no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 17. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 17 as set forth above. 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 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation