Ex Parte Sheleheda et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 201612712962 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation