Ex Parte Sheleheda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

12712962 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121712,962 02/25/2010 Daniel G. Sheleheda
38516 7590 07/28/2016
AT&T Legal Department - SZ
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2009-0649 3728
EXAMINER
JAKOVAC,RYANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2016 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 DANIEL G. SHELEHEDA, EDWARD G. AMOROSO,
CYNTHIA CAMA, JOHN DONOVAN,
BALACHANDER KRISHNAMURTHY, and WILLIAM O'HERN
Appeal2015-002415
Application 12/712,962
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17-20, which are all the
claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to the World Wide Web. See generally
Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a
plurality of instructions which when executed by a processor, cause the
processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:
Appeal2015-002415
Application 12/712,962
refreshing anti-tracking data in an anti-tracking data structure
responsive to satisfaction of at least one of a set of anti-tracking refresh
criteria, wherein the anti-tracking data includes at least one of: opt-out
cookie anti-tracking data indicative of a set of opt-out cookie uniform
resource locators, uniform resource locator anti-tracking data indicative of a
set of uniform resource locators associated with uniform resource locator
tracking, and referer header field antitracking data indicative of a set of
uniform resource locators susceptible to referer header field tracking,
wherein the refreshing anti-tracking data comprises:
initiating a download of a current anti-tracking data structure
from an anti-tracking server; and
receiving a subsequent transmission of a current anti-tracking
data structure initiated by the anti-tracking server;
enabling a user of a user device to provide at least one of: a
uniform resource locator tracking whitelist data indicative of a set of
uniform resource locators authorized by the user and a referer header
field tracking whitelist data indicative of a set of uniform resource
locators authorized to permit referer header field tracking;
responsive to a web browser of the user device generating a request
for a third-party web page specified by a browser uniform resource locator,
comparing at least a portion of the browser uniform resource locator against
the anti-tracking data; and
responsive to the comparing detecting a match in the referer header
field anti-tracking data, modifying the referer header field of the request that
is generated for the third party web page specified by the browser uniform
resource locator by removing personally identifiable information from the
referer header field, wherein the personally identifiable information
comprises a user name, wherein the removing personally identifiable
information comprises blanking the referer header field, wherein the
modifying of the browser uniform resource locator is further responsive to
the comparing and detecting a lack of a match between the browser uniform
resource locator and a uniform resource locator in one of the uniform
resource locator tracking whitelist data and the referer header field white list
data.
2
Appeal2015-002415
Application 12/712,962
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 6, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilson (U.S. 2012/0030283 Al;
published Feb. 2, 2012), Britton (U.S. 2010/0024032 Al; published Jan. 28,
2010), Stetson (U.S. 2008/0215433 Al; published Sept. 4, 2008), and Meyer
(U.S. 2011/0173071 Al; published July 14, 2011).
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wilson, Britton, Stetson, Meyer, and Eguro (U.S.
2010/0325633 Al; published Dec. 23, 2010).
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wilson, Britton, Stetson, Meyer, and Weinberg (U.S.
2010/0153516 Al; published June 17, 2010).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wilson, Britton, Stetson, Meyer, and Wilson '018 (U.S.
2009/0293018 i\.l; published Nov. 26, 2009)
Claims 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wilson, Britton, Stetson, Meyer, and O'Laughlen (U.S.
8,028,059 Bl; published Sept. 27, 2011).
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wilson, Britton, Stetson, Meyer, Wilson 'O 18, and
0 'Laughlen.
3
Appeal2015-002415
Application 12/712,962
ANALYSIS
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and adopt the Examiner's
findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and
(ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below. We
provide the following points.
Issue 1
Appellants argue Britton does not teach "modifj;ing the referer header
field of the request that is generated for the third party web page specified by
the browser uniform resource locator by removing personally identifiable
information from the referer header field," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis
added). See App. Br. 14--15. In particular, Appellants argue
the independent claims of the present disclosure recite the
feature where a request that is generated by a web browser of
the user device is to be modified, e.g., modifying the referer
header field of the request. The modification of the request
generated by the user's own browser has nothing to do with
modifying a cookie placed into the user's device by a third party
as taught by Britton.
App. Br. 14--15; see also Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants contend the Examiner
improperly modifies Britton's teachings for rejecting the claim. See App.
Br. 15.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. The U.S. Supreme Court
has held "[ t ]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Further,
"[i]fthe claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under§ 103" and "the
4
Appeal2015-002415
Application 12/712,962
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
Id. at 418-19.
The Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute-Britton teaches
"modifying [certain information in the cookie]." See Ans. 4--5 (citing
Britton i-fi-127-32).
The Examiner also finds-and Appellants do not dispute-Wilson
and Britton collectively teach "responsive to a web browser of the user
device generating a request for a third-party web page specified by a
browser uniform resource locator .... " See Final Act. 9. Therefore, Wilson
and Britton collectively teach "the request that is generated for the third
party web page specified by the browser uniform resource locator."
The Examiner further finds-and Appellants do not dispute-the term
"referer header field" was known in the art. See Final Act. 9 (citing Wilson
for teaching "referer header field anti tracking data indicative of a set of
uniform resource locators susceptible to referer header field tracking"); see
also In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is
not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater
detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over
the prior art."). The Examiner further finds-and Appellants do not
dispute-paragraph 12 of the Specification acknowledges the claimed
"referer header field" was a standard field in an HTTP request. See Ans. 5;
Spec. i-f 12 (citing Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request For
Comment (RFC) 2616, Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP /1.1 dated June
1999, Section 14.36, available at https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt);
5
Appeal2015-002415
Application 12/712,962
Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/I.I dated June 1999, Section 14.36
(describing the referer header field).
Therefore, the Examiner correctly determines "modifying the referer
header field of the request that is generated for the third party web page
specified by the browser uniform resource locator," as recited in claim 1, is
taught by or obvious in light of the collectively teachings of Wilson and
Britton. The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to
modify the teachings of Wilson and Britton to incorporate the known
technique of the referer header field. See Final Act. 10; Ans. 5. Appellants
fail to persuasively show why such reasoning is insufficient. In particular,
Appellants' attorney argument that "the level of difficulty is quite significant
between the two approaches" (App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 3) is
unsupported and thus, unpersuasive.
The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Appellants do not present adequate
evidence that the resulting arrangements were "uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious
step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that applying the known
technique of the referer header field in the Wilson and Britton combination
would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established
functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. a 417.
6
Appeal2015-002415
Application 12/712,962
Appellants argue:
Issue 2
The Britton reference is completely silent as to blanking of the
referer header field. As such, there would be no reason for
Britton to suggest blanking the referer header field. It is
contended that blanking the referer header field is not suggested
or taught by the alleged combination, as described by Britton.
App. Br. 15. Appellants also argue Britton does not teach the claimed
"referer header field." See App. Br. 15.
Appellants' attorney argument is unpersuasive because it lacks
the requisite support and analysis. Further, as discussed above, the
term "referer header field" was known in the art, and Britton does not
need to teach that term separately.
Issue 3
Appellants argue Stetson teaches away from the proposed
combination, which would have made Stetson inoperable for its
intended purpose. See App. Br. 16. 1
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive, as they are not directed
toward the combination proposed by the Examiner. Specifically, the
Examiner proposes modifying the teachings of Wilson and Britton to
1 An argument that the system is rendered inoperable for its intended
purpose is a teaching away argument. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (The court concluded that in effect, "French teaches away
from the board's proposed modification" because "if the French apparatus
were turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable for its intended
purpose").
7
Appeal2015-002415
Application 12/712,962
incorporate Stetson's technique, and such combination does not modify
Stetson's teachings. See Ans. 7. Appellants' teaching away argument is
unpersuasive because Appellants fail to provide analysis under the current
case law. Specifically, Appellants fail to show one skilled in the art "would
be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be
led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant."
In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
Issue 4
Appellants argue:
Meyer's whitelist merely comprises a list of entities that are
compliant with privacy and notice provisions. (See e.g., Meyer,
Paragraph [0078)). The alleged combination, as described by
Meyer, fails to suggest a whitelist that is used for determining
whether to remove personally identifiable information from a
referer header field of a request. In contrast, the present
disclosure describes that based upon the detecting of a match in
the referer header field with anti-tracking data, the present
disclosure will modify the referer header field of the request by
removing personally identifiable information from the referer
header field, wherein the personally identifiable information
comprises a user name, wherein the removing personally
identifiable information comprises blanking the referer header
field, wherein the modifying of the browser uniform resource
locator is further responsive to the comparing and detecting a
lack of a match between the browser uniform resource locator
and a uniform resource locator in one of the uniform resource
locator tracking whitelist data and the referer header field white
list data.
App. Br. 16-17.
Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
claim, as the claim does not recite a "whitelist that is used for determining
8
Appeal2015-002415
Application 12/712,962
whether to remove personally identifiable information from a reforer header
field of a request." App. Br. 16. If Appellants are arguing Meyer fails to
teach the entire claim limitation "responsive to the comparing detecting ...
,"that argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Wilson,
Britton, Stetson, and Meyer to teach that claim limitation, Appellants cannot
establish nonobviousness by attacking Meyer individually. See In re Merck
& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 11 and 18.
Regarding dependent claims 6, 12, 14, and 20, Appellants merely
assert the additional limitations in those claims are absent in the combination
of cited references. See App. Br. 17-25. Appellants' assertion is
unpersuasive, as Appellants do not provide explanation, let alone show error
in the Examiner's rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim"); see also In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that "the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art"); In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391. Therefore, and for similar reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claims 6, 12, 14, and 20.
Regarding dependent claims 4, 7-9, 15, 17, and 19, Appellants assert
the additionally cited references do not teach the disputed limitations of
9
Appeal2015-002415
Application 12/712,962
independent claims 1, 11, and 18, and the additional limitation of claim 17 is
absent in the combination of cited references. See App. Br. 25-39. As
discussed above, Appellants' arguments about independent claims are
unpersuasive. Further, Appellants' additional argument about claim 17 is
unpersuasive, because Appellants do not provide explanation, let alone show
error in the Examiner's rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357; In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 4, 7-9, 15, 17, and
19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11, 12,
14, 15, and 17-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10