Ex Parte Rajamani et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 19, 201311924219 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/924,219 10/25/2007 Nithya Rajamani YOR920070424US1 1878 48063 7590 11/20/2013 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP 48 South Service Road Suite 100 Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/20/2013 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 NITHYA RAJAMANI, JAMES RUBAS, NORBERT G. VOGL, and WLODEK WLODZIMIERZ ZADROZNY ____________ Appeal 2011-007489 Application 11/924,2191 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal 2011-007489 Application 11/924,219 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-28, which are all the claims remaining in the application. Claims 6 and 12 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The present invention relates generally to techniques for obtaining real-time grants of access from a supervising entity to one or more documents in which the user has limited access. See Spec., 1, ll. 7-8. Claims 1 and 15 are illustrative: 1. A computer-based method of providing at least one user access to one or more documents in a collaborative computing environment in accordance with a search engine, comprising the steps of: presenting the user with search results, wherein the search results comprise at least one document comprising at least one portion to which the user has no access; receiving a request from the user for access to the at least one document; notifying a supervising entity of the user request to access the at least one document; receiving an instruction from the supervising entity with regard to the request; and granting access to the user to the at least one document in accordance with the received instruction; Appeal 2011-007489 Application 11/924,219 3 wherein the step of presenting the user with search results further comprises the step of allowing the user to view at least one segment to which the user has access, of the at least one document. 15. A computer-based method wherein a supervising entity grants a user access to one or more documents in a collaborative computing environment using a search engine, comprising the steps of: indexing the one or more documents using the search engine, wherein at least one of the one or more documents comprises at least one portion to which the user has no access; receiving notification from the search engine of a user request to access the at least one document; and instructing the search engine to provide the user with access to the at least one document; wherein the search engine allows the user to view at least one segment to which the user has access, of the at least one document. Appellants appeal the following rejections: R1. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Cozianu (U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0162417 A1, published July 12, 2007); and R2. Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cozianu and Dettinger (U.S. Patent Pub. 2006/0004749 A1, published Jan. 5, 2006). Claim Groupings Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2011-007489 Application 11/924,219 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 14, 20-25, and 28 Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Cozianu discloses presenting the user with search results wherein the search results comprise at least one document comprising at least one portion to which the user has no access? Appellants contend that “in the arrangement taught by Cozianu, a document is either restricted or unrestricted, with no ability to distinguish between different portions of that document” (App. Br. 10). Appellants further contend that “the limitation at issue requires that a document comprise both at least one portion to which the user has no access and at least one segment to which the user has access” (id. at 9). Appellants also contend that “[t]he only manner in which a user can be provided with access to only a portion of a restricted document is to create another document which includes only that portion of the restricted document, and to designate that other document as unrestricted” (id. at 10). We agree with Appellants. Claim 1 requires, inter alia, presenting the user with search results, wherein the search results comprise at least one document comprising at least one portion to which the user has no access and allowing the user to view at least one segment to which the user has access, of the at least one document (see claim 1). While the Examiner found that “if the selected document is a restricted document, [the] user can still view the abstract (segment or document portion) of the restricted document” (Ans. 16), we fail to see where Cozianu presents a document that comprises both a portion in which the user has access and a portion in which the user has no access. Instead, Appeal 2011-007489 Application 11/924,219 5 the cited portion of Cozianu discloses that “the custodian user 128 is able to directly contact . . . the requesting user 130 to determine what content is sought. . . . then generates a second document containing only that data sought, thereby maintaining the privacy of the remainder of the restricted document” (¶ [0027]; see also ¶ [0035]). In other words, Cozianu discloses presenting the requesting user with a new document that only contains data sought (i.e., access granted), albeit perhaps from a restricted document. However, the Examiner has not shown a restricted document in Cozianu that is presented to the user that distinguishes the different portions therein, i.e., particularly the no-access portion(s). We are therefore constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and independent claims 10, 20, 25, and 26 for similar reasons. Claims 2-5, 7-9, and 28 (dependent on claim 1), claims 11, 13, and 14 (dependent on claim 10), claims 21-24 (dependent on claim 20), and claim 27 (dependent on claim 26) stand with their respective independent claims. Thus, based on the record before us, and for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, we find that the Examiner erred in finding that Cozianu discloses each limitation recited in Appellants’ claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 14, and 20-28. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 14, 20-25, and 28. Claims 15-17 While we found supra, that the Examiner has not shown that Cozianu discloses a restricted document that is presented to the user that distinguishes the different portions therein, i.e., particularly the no-access portion(s), we find that independent claim 15 does not require such a feature. For example, Appeal 2011-007489 Application 11/924,219 6 claim 15 requires “instructing the search engine to provide the user with access to the at least one document; wherein the search engine allows the user to view at least one segment to which the user has access, of the at least one document” (see claim 15). However, claim 15 does not necessarily require presenting the user with a document designating a no-access portion. Instead, claim 15 merely requires indexing a document comprising at least one portion to which the user has no access, i.e., indexing a restricted document. However, in claim 15, the user is allowed to view at least one segment to which the user has access, as it is not further required to distinguish a no-access portion therein. Cozianu discloses that “[w]hen access is not initially granted . . . The custodian user 128 is then able to generate a new document containing only the requested information and allow the requesting user 130 access to the new document” (¶ [0035]). In other words, in Cozianu the requesting user is allowed to view a document which includes segments from the restricted document. We find that the claimed “allows the user to view at least one segment to which the user has access” reads on the aforementioned disclosure of Cozianu. In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitation in the disclosure of Cozianu, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of representative independent claim 15, as well as claims 16 and 17 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained. Claims 18 and 19 Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Cozianu discloses blocking and/or unblocking one or more segments in a document? Appeal 2011-007489 Application 11/924,219 7 Regarding claim 18, Appellants contend that “Cozianu does not allow for any unblocking of individual segments of a document” (App. Br. 11). Regarding claim 19, Appellants contend that “Cozianu does not allow for any blocking of individual segments of a document as recited in claim 19” (id.). The Examiner found that the “custodian can set level of access to document as desired” (Ans. 16-17). We agree with the Examiner. As noted supra, Cozianu discloses that “the custodian user 128 is able to directly contact . . . the requesting user 130 to determine what content is sought. . . . then generates a second document containing only that data sought, thereby maintaining the privacy of the remainder of the restricted document” (¶ [0027]; see also ¶ [0035]). In other words, Cozianu allows access to segments of a document, i.e., unblocking individual segments, while maintaining the privacy of other portions of the document, i.e., blocking individual segments. In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitation in the disclosure of Cozianu, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of dependent claims 18 and 19 is sustained. Claims 26 and 27 On this record, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 26 and dependent claim 27 for essentially the same reasons as presented for claim 1, as discussed above. Appeal 2011-007489 Application 11/924,219 8 DECISION2 We reverse the Examiner’s § 102(a) rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 14, 20-25, and 28; and the § 103(a) rejection of claims 26 and 27. We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(a) rejection of claims 15-19. 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART rwk 2 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider if storage medium claim 25 should also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Specification does not use the term “computer readable storage medium” at all. Given this silence in the Specification, we are compelled to note that the ordinary and customary meaning of “computer readable storage medium” to a person of ordinary skill in the art is broad enough to encompass both non-transitory and transitory media. Signals are not patentable eligible subject matter under § 101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See also MPEP § 2106(I) (8th ed. Rev. 9 Aug. 2012) and Ex parte Mewherter, 2013 WL 3291360 (PTAB May 8, 2013) (precedential). Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation