Ex Parte Daniels et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

11085647 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111085,647 03/21/2005
46321 7590 09/02/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fonda J. Daniels
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.
LOT920050009US1 (090) 3194
EXAMINER
WOOLCOCK, MADHU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FONDA J. DANIELS, RUTHIE D. LYLE, and
MARY ELLEN ZURKO
Appeal2015-003960
Application 11/085,647
Technology Center 2400
Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
JEREMY J. CURCURI, and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3 and 7-12. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Heumesser (US 2004/0221012 Al; Nov. 4, 2004), Baker (US
200410049696 Al; Mar. 11, 2004), and Claudatos (US 7,725,098 Bl; May
25, 2010). Final Act. 8-19.
Appeal2015-003960
Application 11/085,647
Claims 3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Heumesser, Baker, Claudatos, and Le Hors (Enterprise Privacy
Authorization Language (EPAL), Submission Request to W3C, November,
10, 2003). Final Act. 19--21.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Heumesser, Baker, Claudatos, and Chan (US 7 ,590,693 B 1; Sept. 15, 2009).
Final Act. 22.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "policy based control of multiple
message forwards." Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for policy based control of multiple message
forwards, the method comprising the steps of:
reviewing, by a processor of a computer, a policy defined in a uniform
messaging handling schema and also associated with a message delivered to
an initial recipient to identify both a set of recipients and also a set of rights
for manipulating the message afforded to the set of recipients;
receiving a request to forward the message delivered to the initial
recipient from the initial recipient to a new recipient;
determining whether or not a message already received by the new
recipient is an unmodified form of the message delivered to the initial
recipient and requested to be forwarded from the initial recipient to the new
recipient;
responsive to determining that the message already received by the
new recipient is the unmodified form of the message delivered to the initial
recipient and requested to be forwarded to the new recipient, undertaking
remedial measures to enforce limitations imposed by the policy upon the
new recipient in respect to the message delivered to the initial recipient and
to be forwarded to the new recipient, the remedial measures including
blocking the forwarding of the message delivered to the initial recipient to
the new recipient; and,
2
Appeal2015-003960
Application 11/085,647
logging in a log the remedial measures undertaken when the remedial
measure is the blocking of the forwarding of the message delivered to the
initial recipient to the new recipient upon determining that the message
already received by the new recipient is the unmodified form of the message
delivered to the initial recipient and requested to be forwarded to the new
recipient.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 7, 10, AND 11 OVER
HEUMESSER, BAKER, AND CLAUDATOS
The Examiner finds Heumesser, Baker, and Claudatos teach all
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 8-12.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. "Baker describes that a log of every request to access and every
action taken on an email is maintained and describes that such actions
include opening, forwarding, copying, replying, carbon copy replies, and cut
and paste." App. Br. 9. "In other words, in Baker, to log an action, an
actual action, such as the opening, forwarding, copying, etc. on the e-mail
must actually occur. Rather, Appellants' claim language requires recording
the lack of action--the blocking of the forwarding of the message. So much
is missing in Baker." App. Br. 9. See also Reply Br. 4--5.
11. "Claudatos teaches that if it is determined that a data message is
to be blocked, the data message is blocked and that the blocking process can
include logging data associated with the blocked data message." App. Br.
10. "Appellants' claim requires logging about the occurrence of the
blocking itself. But Claudatos teaches logging the data (the message
contents and/ or metadata associated with the message) associated with the
blocked message, not the occurrence of the remedial measures undertaken--
3
Appeal2015-003960
Application 11/085,647
the blocking itself~ as required by Appellants' claim language." App. Br. 10.
See also Reply Br. 3--4.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness.
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's finding that
Baker teaches logging actions taken on a message. Final Act. 11; see also
Baker i-f 18 ("[A]n activity log is maintained for each privileged e-mail with
an audit trail detailing each and every action taken on the e-mail.").
We also agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's finding that
Claudatos teaches the recited (claim 1) "logging in a log the remedial
measures undertaken when the remedial measure is the blocking of the
forwarding of the message." Final Act. 11; see also Claudatos col. 10,
11. 46--48 ("If it is determined that the message is to be blocked, the message
is blocked (1210), i.e., it is not forwarded on to the intended recipient.") and
Claudatos col. 10, 11. 50-52 ("[T]he blocking process includes logging data
associated with the blocked data message.").
We also agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's reasoning:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to log the blocking of messages in the system/method of
Heumesser-Baker as suggested by Claudatos in order to allow
personnel to review which messages have been blocked. One
would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to track
and maintain a record of which messages were transmitted to a
recipient and which messages were blocked from particular
recipients.
Final Act. 11-12.
Regarding Appellants' argument (i), this argument does not show any
error in the Examiner's findings because Baker's audit trail (see Baker i-f 18)
4
Appeal2015-003960
Application 11/085,647
discloses logging actions taken on a message, and the Examiner further
relies on Claudatos for teaching the specifically recited (claim 1) "logging in
a log the remedial measures undertaken when the remedial measure is the
blocking of the forwarding of the message." Final Act. 11 (citing Claudatos,
col. 10, 11. 46-48, 50-52); see also Ans. 3 ("Baker does not explicitly
provide blocking as an example of an action taken on an email, and it is the
Claudatos reference which is relied upon for curing this deficiency.").
Further, regarding Appellants' argument (ii), this argument also does
not show any error in the Examiner's findings because Claudatos's blocking
a message and logging associated data (see Claudatos col. 10, 11. 46-48, 50-
52) discloses the specifically recited (claim 1) "logging in a log the remedial
measures undertaken when the remedial measure is the blocking of the
forwarding of the message." Put another way, logging data associated with
the blocked message teaches logging remedial measures undertaken when
the remedial measure is blocking, as recited. See Ans. 4 ("Given that the
logging of message data in Claudatos is part of the blocking process and
occurs based on the message being blocked, it is apparent that this logging is
synonymous to logging of the occurrence of the blocking.").
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2, 7, 10, and 11, which are not argued separately with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3, 9, AND 12 OVER HEUMESSER,
BAKER, CLAUDATOS, AND LE HORS
Appellants argue that claims 3, 9, and 12 are patentable for reasons
argued with respect to the respective independent claims 1, 7, and 10.
See App. Br. 10-11.
5
Appeal2015-003960
Application 11/085,647
For reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1, 7, and 10, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 9, and 12.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 8 OVER HEUMESSER, BAKER,
CLAUDATOS, AND CHAN
Appellants argue that claim 8 is patentable for reasons argued with
respect to independent claim 7. See App. Br. 11.
For reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 8.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 7-12 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
6