Ex Parte Leonard et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 201310961784 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2013) 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. 10/961,784 10/08/2004 Glenda Ann Leonard 256075-000004USPT 8248 70001 7590 10/30/2013 NIXON PEABODY, LLP 300 S. Riverside Plaza, 16th Floor CHICAGO, IL 60606-6613 EXAMINER GEBRESENBET, DINKU W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/30/2013 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 GLENDA ANN LEONARD, THANE EISENER, JULIAN CRADDOCK, WALDO RACHOW, and PAUL HASKINS ____________ Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to content management and, more particularly, to a system and method for managing content using declarative policies.” (Spec. 2). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A computer implemented method for defining and constraining a behavior of a shared, mobile content management system including a plurality of mobile devices in a at least two separate security domains having periodic communications within the system, the computer including a memory, a processor and a display, comprising: providing an admin console for defining, modifying, and managing declarative policies by separate security domain for the mobile devices on the display; defining the declarative policies based on a mobile policy model via the processor, the mobile policy model dictating the declarative policies that can be expressed by the admin console; enacting the defined declarative policies without requiring the content management system to be restarted, reconfigured, or re-implemented via the processor; providing an XML-based policy wizard definition language for defining policy wizards in the admin console that guide an administrator through creating and editing eh declarative policies; providing at least one policy repository based on LDAP, the at least one policy repository having an interface and being Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 3 adapted to store a plurality of declarative policies, the at least one policy repository having scalable and distributed capabilities; and distributing the declarative policies to the mobile device via their respective security domains. REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 27, and 31-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mohaban (U.S. Patent Application No. 6,463,470 B1). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 41-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Knauerhase (U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0236633 A1). 3. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Bellinger (U.S. Patent Publication Application No. 2002/0169858 A1), in view of Montanari (Policy- Based Separation of Concerns for Dynamic Code Mobility Management, 2003). 4. The Examiner rejected claims 13, 14, and 19-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Bhat (U.S. Patent Publication Application No. 2004/0070604 A1), Mayer (U.S. Patent Publication Application No. 2002/0178246), in view of Montanari. Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 4 5. The Examiner rejected claims 5-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Bellinger, Montanari, in view of Stevens (U.S. Patent Publication Application No. 6,539,425 B1). 6. The Examiner rejected claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Bhat, Mayer, Montanari, in view of Chen (Effect of Architecture Configuration on Software Reliability and Performance Estimation). 7. The Examiner rejected claims 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Mohaban and Chen. ANALYSIS1 We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Brief. 2 Independent Claim 27 Issue: Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding Mohaban discloses “retriev[ing] the stored policies via a plurality of indexes of the stored policies, the indexes including a system trigger index and a condition index, each of the plurality of indexes being tied to a specific domain name 1 Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on June 4, 2010. The date of filing the Notice of Appeal determines which set of rules applies to an Ex Parte appeal. If a notice of appeal is filed prior to January 23, 2012, then the 2004 version of the Board Rules last published in the 2011 edition of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 C.F.R. § 41.1 et seq.) applies to the appeal. See also MPEP Rev. 8, July 2010. 2 Appellants’ principal Brief on appeal does not have page numbers. Therefore, throughout this opinion we refer to pages numbered sequentially from the first page of the Appeal Brief. Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 5 in a directory,” within the meaning of independent claim 27? (Emphasis added). Appellants contend “Mohaben [sic] does not disclose using a plurality of indexes to retrieve stored policies. Mohaben [sic] also does not disclose the use of ‘a system trigger index or a condition index’ for retrieval of the stored policies since Mohaben [sic] only discloses using a single index for the relatively few data flow policies stored.” (App. Br. 10). The Examiner finds the aforementioned claim limitations are disclosed by Mohaban’s description of “one or more policy trees . . . each policy tree comprising one or more policy domains and one or more repositories, each policy domain comprising one or more policy rules that reference one or more conditions . . . .” (Col. 6, ll. 5 and 15-18). The Examiner also finds “Mohaben [sic] discloses attaching the condition, its variable, and a value, the action and its policers, [and] allows retrieval of the entire policy rule in a single LDAP operation, (see Col. 27, lines 59-62).” (Ans. 29). We observe the Examiner supports the rejection by broadly construing the disputed limitations in the context of Appellants’ Specification (¶[0030]), which describes “[p]olicies within the policy repository 14 are indexed by system trigger(s) and condition(s). These indexes are mapped directly to LDAP domain names (DNs) and as a result can be rapidly retrieved from a LDAP registry.” (See Ans. 28-29). We observe Mohaban describes “retrieval of the entire policy rule in a single LDAP operation.” (Col. 27, ll. 61-62). We further observe Mohaban expressly discloses “triggers” and “conditions” in column 6: Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 6 creating and storing information structures comprises creating and storing one or more policy trees, each policy tree comprising one or more policy domains and one or more repositories, each policy domain comprising one or more policy rules that reference one or more conditions and actions that are defined in the repositories and that represent one or more of the policies representing quality of service treatments of network data flows for network devices; creating and storing one or more sub-policy objects associated with one of the policies in one of the policy domains, wherein each sub-policy object comprises at least one condition, action, and trigger. (Mohaban, col. 6, ll. 35-47, emphasis added). In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend Mohaben [sic] does not disclose “managing content across different networks as required by claim 27 and only addresses a single network having few policies thereby providing no motivation for multiple indexes necessary for multiple content policies across different networks.” (Reply Br. 3, emphasis added). However, claim 27 is silent regarding the “different networks” argued by Appellants. (Id.). Regarding the Examiner’s reading of the claimed “plurality of indexes” (claim 27) on Mohaban’s “one or more policy trees” (col. 6, l. 5), our reviewing court guides that anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citation omitted). “An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims.” Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). This reasoning is applicable here, particularly when we are construing labeled types of data. Moreover, we find nothing in the language of claim 27 that precludes a broad reading of the recited “a system trigger index” and “a condition trigger index” on respective “indexes” where each index contains one or Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 7 more data elements. (i.e., Mohaban’s sub-policy objects that comprise at least one condition, action, and trigger; see Mohaban, col. 6, l. 47, emphasis added). Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We sustain the § 102 rejection of independent claim 27. Dependent claims 28-30 Claims 28-30 stand rejected under § 103 over the combination of Mohaban and Chen. Appellants contend “[c]laims 28-30 depend from claim 27 and are allowable for the reasons specified above in relation to claim 27.” (App. Br. 21). However, we do not agree with Appellants that claim 27 is allowable for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s §103 rejection of claims 28-30 over Mohaban and Chen. Claims 31-40 Issue: Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding Mohaban discloses “policies using policy classification tuples having policy classification attributes including attributes” and the recited “wild card parameter,” within the meaning of independent claim 31? (Emphasis added). Appellants contend: The Final Office Action has cited Col. 17, 11. 66-67 and Table 4 of Mohaben [sic] as disclosing , or matches of a condition. (Ex. B, p. 5). However, this section only relates to general conditions for a policy and does not relate to matching multiple OPERATION>, or policy classification attributes to the current context of the mobile device as required by claim 31. As explained above, Mohaben [sic] only relates to identification values for each policy. The Office Action asserts that Col. 6, 11. 54- 60 relates to storing classes of different traffic flows. However, nothing in this section of Mohaben [sic] or elsewhere discloses or suggests Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 8 matching multiple , or policy classification attributes that are unique to mobile content and determining a match to those attributes in order to rapidly filter through multiple policies to obtain relevant policies relating to content for the device. Mohaben [sic] also does not disclose "extension instructions supporting a wild card parameter within the policy identification tuples." The Final Office Action has cited Col. 16, 11. 62-67 which disclose condition nodes that may comprise a parameter which may be a range of ACP values or URL statements. (Ex. B, p. 5). The Final Office Action has reasoned that "a parameter could be any kind including wild card." (Ex. B, p. 5). There is no suggestion nor disclosure in Mohaben [sic] that equates the parameter, which is a range of ACP values or URL statements, to a wild card which matches any value for that parameter as required by claim 27. (App. Br. 12-13). The Examiner disagrees: Mohaben [sic] discloses that each policy rule is implemented in a qosPolicyRule class that has the Direction attribute and the attribute it inherits from the PolicyRule Core class. The Trigger attribute 862 is a DN reference to a trigger object. A trigger specifies an event such as a time event or network load. For example, specifying a time trigger for a policy means that the policy rule will only be enabled for a specific time frame. Interpretation of a policy rule for a given network flow is expressed in the statement: "If the rule is enabled (EnableFlag=TRUE), and the flow direction is as specified in Direction and the Condition evaluated to TRUE, then use the Action to extract the prescribed treatment for this flow.", (see col. 24, lines 30-45). Regarding [the disputed] wild card parameter, Mohaben [sic] discloses that each condition comprises a parameter, an operator, and an operand, and each condition evaluates to Boolean value, (see Col. 16, lines 62- 67). According to Mohaben [sic], Some object classes may be used to create reusable objects as well as non-reusable, "ad- Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 9 hoc" instances. Such is the case with the qosPolicySimpleCondition class, for example. The class definition for such objects can't require a "must" status for the name attribute, because ad-hoc objects don't require it, and the requirement for name uniqueness can only be enforced by DIT constructors, not LDAP Server schema checking, see col. (Ans. 29-30, emphasis omitted). Regarding the anticipation rejection of claim 31, we are again construing claimed labeled types of data. (Cf. rejection of claim 29 supra). However, regarding claim 31, we find speculation is required to affirm the Examiner regarding the specific mapping to the Mohaban reference of the contested claim limitations of “matching any of the , or policy classification attributes of the policy object to the current context of a mobile device making the request.” (Claim 31). In the response to arguments (Ans. 30), the Examiner only addresses the claimed “ policy classification attribute of the policy object” (“The Trigger attribute 862 [in Mohaban] is a DN reference to a trigger object.” Ans. 30, line 1), and does not specifically address the contested limitation of “matching any of the , or policy classification attributes of the policy object to the current context of a mobile device making the request.” (Claim 31; see Ans. 30). Nor do we find a clear description in the cited portions of Mohaban for the claimed “wild card parameter matching any value for that element when the tuple is retrieved” (claim 31), which the Examiner finds is described by Mohaban’s “condition [that] comprises a parameter, an operator, and an operand, [where] each condition evaluates to Boolean Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 10 value, (see Col. 16, lines 62- 67).” (Ans. 30). In particular, we do not see how conditional Boolean operations can be found to unconditionally “match[] any value for that element when the tuple is retrieved” as a “wild card parameter” within the plain meaning of claim 31. Because we decline to engage in speculation, and because we do not find a fair description of the claimed “wild card parameter” in Mohaban, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 31 over Mohaban for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants in the Briefs. Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31, we also reverse the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of associated dependent claims 32-40 for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 31. Independent Claim 41 Issue: Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding that Knauerhase discloses: “A mobile content management system including a plurality of transient mobile devices, the mobile content management system adapted to generate its own internal transient policies . . . wherein the content management engine supports version control on digital content by instantiating transient "check in" and "check out" policies for the mobile devices to access the digital content,” within the meaning of representative independent claim 41? (Emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that Knauerhase discloses transient mobile devices, within the meaning of claim 41: [0015] In a network environment, for various reasons, devices may suddenly appear, disappear, and reappear on the network. Such devices are referenced herein and the claims that follow as "transitory devices." The phrase "transitory device" is intended Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 11 to broadly encompass both physically distinct machines, such as conventional portable or mobile computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), embedded computers in transportation devices . . . .” (Knauerhase, ¶[0015]). Regarding the disputed "check in" and "check out" policies, Appellants have not pointed to an express definition for these labeled policies in the Specification. As an initial matter of claim construction, we conclude the “wherein clause” of claim 41 is directed to functional language that does not further limit the claimed system (apparatus) of claim 41 to a particular structure. 3 Therefore, on this record we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s broader reading is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification. (Ans. 10-11). Given this claim construction, on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s findings regarding Knauerhase’s registry that “facilitates advertising, discovering, and providing/using services and resources (collectively referenced hereafter as a ‘registration’).” (Ans. 11; see also Knauerhase ¶[0014]). For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 41. 3 See MPEP §2111.04 regarding "wherein" clauses: Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. (MPEP §2111.04 Eighth Edition, Rev. 9, Aug. 2012). Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 12 Dependent Claims 42-43 Appellants contend claim 42 is separately allowable as it requires locking digital content so only one mobile device can update the version. (App. Br. 15). In particular, Appellants note that “[w]ith regard to claim 42, the Final Office Action has cited paragraph 18 of Knauerhase. (Ex. B, p. 10). This paragraph indicates that registrations may be limited so private networks hosting private services will not be advertised to or accessed by entities outside of that network domain. (Ex. D, ¶ 18). Thus, this paragraph only describes limiting access; it does not specify locking digital content, but allowing access to the digital content as required by claim 42.” (Id.). The Examiner disagrees: Appellant's claim 42 recites "locking a digital content. .. when the digital content needs to be locked". It does not specifically recite locking digital content so that only one mobile device can update the version. It is limiting access only to one user or mobile device. Knauerhase teaches limiting access to private network that hosts private service but denying access to entities outside of that network domain which is equated with locking digital content, but allowing access to the digital content as required by claim 42. (Ans. 31-32). We agree with the Examiner that claim 42 does not recite “locking digital content so only one mobile device can update the version.” (App. Br. 15). Because Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the broader scope of the claim, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner’s error. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claim 42 over Knauerhase for the same reasons argued by the Examiner. Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 13 (Ans. 31-32). Claim 43, which depends from claim 42 (but not separately argued) falls with claim 42. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Independent Claim 1 Issue: Under §103, (1) did the Examiner err in combining the references, and (2), did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Bellinger and Montanari would have taught or suggested “two separate security domains” within the meaning of representative claim 1? Appellants contend: (1) it is improper to combine mobile device descriptions in Montanari with Bellinger because Bellinger does not have conditions unique to mobile systems, and (2), the combination of Montanari and Bellinger does not disclose two separate security domains. (App. Br. 16- 17). Appellants contend: [t]he Final Office Action has asserted it would be obvious to modify the Bellinger system to comprise mobile devices based on the Montanari reference in order to provide rapid mobile code based service, prototyping, runtime configuration and maintenance. (Ex. B, p. 14). However, none of these problems is an issue in a fixed network because the devices are by definition always connected to the network. Thus, Montanari relates to an entirely unrelated aspect of mobile networks than the fixed network in Bellinger. (App. Br. 16). Regarding the claimed “two separate security domains” (claim 1), Appellants contend that “Bellinger only discloses a single security domain where the service delivery points (SDP) 20 are all on the same system as the Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 14 central controller 26. (Ex. E, Figs. 1,5 and 6). Since all of the service delivery points (SDP) 20 and client devices are physically connected and share access to content, they constitute the same security domain. (Ex. E, Fig. 1).” (App. Br. 17). The Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) guides that to be nonobvious, an improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” Here, we disagree with Appellants that “Montanari relates to an entirely unrelated aspect of mobile networks than the fixed network in Bellinger” (App. Br. 16), because Montanari express teaches: The convergence between the Internet and telecommunication systems promotes an integrated scenario characterized by different flavors of mobility. Users can connect to the network from ubiquitous points of attachment and wireless portable devices can roam by maintaining continuous connectivity. (Abstract, lines 1-6). The Examiner relies on Mohaban’s Abstract in support of the proffered combination on page 15 of the Answer. Thus, we find the Examiner provided sufficient articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in combing the cited Bellinger and Montanari references. Regarding the contested claim 1 limitation of “two separate security domains,” we agree with the Examiner’s finding regarding Bellinger’s department groups within their organization [that] have different security domains. (Ans. 33; see also Bellinger ¶ [0079], “In addition to giving the Service Provider the capability to offer targeted service to customer groups, Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 15 the central controller gives business customer administrators the ability to control which employees have access to registered services. Through the customer administration portal, purchasing officers can create department groups within their organization.” Moreover, we find the claim 1 limitation of a second security domain would have been nothing more than a “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. ” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Thus, claiming a mere plurality of prior art elements is not an unobvious distinction over the prior art of record, because using plural elements would have produced a predictable result under §103 For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s §103 rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2-3 (not argued separately) which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Dependent claims 5-12 Claims 5-12 stand rejected under § 103 over the combination of Bellinger, Montanari, and Stevens. Appellants contend “[c]laims 5-12 depend from claim 1 and are allowable for the reasons specified above in relation to claim 1.” (App. Br. 20). However, we do not agree with Appellants that claim 1 is allowable for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s §103 rejection of claims 5-12 over the combination of Bellinger, Montanari, and Stevens for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 16 Independent Claims 13 and 20 Claim 13 Issue: Under §103, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bhat, Mayer, and Montanari would have taught or suggested “a policy wizard having a plurality of steps, each of the steps including user prompts and user options to accept selections by a user to create a new policy without coding written by a user,” within the meaning of claim 13? Claim 20 Issue: Under §103, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bhat, Mayer, and Montanari would have taught or suggested “mobile policy definition files based on . . .systems actions, external actions based on mobile device operation, system conditions, and external conditions based on mobile device context,” within the meaning of claim 20? Regarding claims 13 and 20, Appellants contend: Claims 13 and 20 require a wizard that includes a plurality of steps including user prompts and user options to accept selections to create a new policy. The Final Office Action now cites Mayer for the concept of a policy wizard and combines that reference with Bhat and Montinari [sic]. However, both of these claims require that the policy created by the wizard includes actions that must be performed (claim 13) or generates user interfaces (claim 20). Mayer does not disclose a wizard for creating policies that perform actions or interfaces created by the wizard. (App. Br. 19). We particularly observe the Examiner fails to respond to Appellants’ arguments in the Answer. In the rejection of both claims 13 and 20, the Examiner finds Mayer’s “Policy Wizard Module 420 is capable of assisting a network administrator in generating an instance of a Network Policy. see paragraph [0037], lines 4-9; which can be expressed as a PML program[,] a Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 17 Policy Wizard Module 710, a software tool for allowing the network administrator to define capabilities without actually programming. see paragraph [00511. lines 4-9).” (Ans. 17, 20). We observe that Mayer’s paragraph [0037] merely discloses: The analysis platform 400 includes a Policy Modeler Module 410 having a Policy Wizard Module 420 and a Policy Modeling Language Parser 430. The Policy Wizard Module 420 is capable of assisting a network administrator in generating an instance of a Network Policy, which can be expressed as a PML program. Given the Examiner’s failure to respond to Appellants’ arguments for claims 13 and 20, and without more specific detail regarding Mayer’s policy wizard, we find speculation would be required to affirm the Examiner on this record. We decline to engage in speculation. Therefore, for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants in the Brief (App. Br. 19), we reverse the Examiner’s §103 rejection over Bhat, Mayer, and Montanari of independent claims 13 and 20, and the rejection over Bhat, Mayer, and Montanari of associated dependent claims (claims 14 and 19, and 21-26 respectively). Dependent Claims 15-18 Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 15-18 under § 103 over the combined teachings of Bhat, Mayer, Montanari, and Chen, we do not find, and the Examiner has not established, that Chen overcomes the aforementioned deficiencies of Bhat, Mayer, Montanari, as discussed above regarding independent claim 13, from which claims 15-18 depend. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s §103 rejection of claims 15-18 for the same reasons discussed above regarding independent claim 13. Appeal 2011-007347 Application 10/961,784 18 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 27 and 31-43 under §102. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-12, and 28-30 under §103. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13-26 under §103. 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). ORDER AFFIRMED-IN-PART Vsh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation