Ex Parte Ghafourifar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

14584329 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/584,329 12/29/2014
29855 7590 09/20/2018
Blank Rome LLP - Houston General
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alston Ghafourifar
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.
1275-0006US1 9962
EXAMINER
NIPA, WASIKA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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):
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
mbrininger@blankrome.com
smcdermott@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALSTON GHAFOURIF AR,
MEHDI GHAFOURIF AR, and BRIENNE GHAFOURIF AR
Appeal2018---002392 1
Application 14/584,329
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision to reject all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 "Entefy Inc. is the real party in interest." Br. 3.
Appeal2018---002392
Application 14/584,329
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to "combin[ing] customized
permissioning settings at the document and sub-document levels with
customized encryption keys to achieve a greater level of control over who
[the users'] data is shared with and exactly what information is shared."
Spec. ,r 14. Claims 1-25 are pending; of these, claims 1, 11, and 21 are
independent. Br. 11-16. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference ( with
the "generate" limitation emphasized):
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising
computer executable instructions stored thereon to cause one or
more processing units to:
receive an indication of a first portion of a first
document;
receive a first permission setting for the first portion;
receive an indication of a first recipient for the first
portion;
generate a first encryption key for the first portion based,
at least in part, on the first permission setting for the first
portion and the indicated first recipient of the first portion;
encrypt the first portion using the first generated
encryption key for the first portion;
encrypt the first generated encryption key using a public
key of the first recipient; and
transmit the first document, comprising the first
encrypted portion, and the encrypted first generated encryption
key to the first recipient.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 11, and 21 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of
copending US Patent Application No. 14/986,072. Final Act. 4.
2
Appeal2018---002392
Application 14/584,329
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Giroux (US 2002/0078361 Al; June 20, 2002), Berger
(US 2003/0105719 Al; June 5, 2003), and Jevans (US 2001/0055396 Al;
December 2 7, 2001). Final Act. 5.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants do not separately argue the obviousness rejection of claims
1-25. See Br. 9. We select claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37
C.F.R. §4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are not persuaded of reversible error; we adopt the Examiner's
findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
A. Double Patenting
Appellants do not traverse the provisional non-statutory double
patenting rejection of claims 1, 11, and 21. Br. 6. Accordingly, we
summarily and proforma sustain the provisional non-statutory double
patenting rejection. We note US Patent Application No. 14/986,072 has
issued as US Patent No. 9,990,513 B2 (June 5, 2018).
3
Appeal2018---002392
Application 14/584,329
B. Obviousness
Appellants argue the Examiner errs, because "[e]ach of the cited
references (Giroux, Berger, and Jevans) is silent as to at least [the] claim 1
element regarding the generation of the first encryption key." Br. 7.
Particularly, Appellants contend "Berger at most teaches associating
different encryption keys with different groups of users," which is "not the
same as ( or the equivalent to) the recited claim element of generating a
specific, custom encryption key based on [ 1.] the particular permission
setting for the portion being encrypted and [2.] the indicated recipient of the
particular encrypted portion." Br. 8.
During prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, consistent with the Specification, as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants cite the Specification's
description of "step 415" for supporting the generate limitation of claim 1:
"Next, the system modifies Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encryption
keys for each portion of the document with different permissions settings
(Step 415)." Br. 7 (quoting Spec. ,r 38). The cited portions of the
Specification, however, do not explain how the keys are modified, nor do the
portions refer to basing any key modification or generation on the "indicated
first recipient" as claimed. 2 Based on the record before us, we agree with
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether the Specification provides written description support for the claim
requirement of generating the encryption key based on, inter alia, the
indicated recipient.
4
Appeal2018---002392
Application 14/584,329
the Examiner that "each generated key is dedicated for a particular section of
the document and a particular user." Ans. 5.
Berger discloses methods and a system to "associate encryption keys
with each group of users. The portions of documents, 301, 302, 308, allowed
to go to each group, 304, are identified, 305, and encrypted with the
corresponding group's encryption key, 306. The resulting document contains
different portions encrypted with different keys, 307." Berger ,r 33.
Consistent with the Specification, we agree with the Examiner that Berger
teaches or suggests the generate limitation, as Berger teaches "generating
three keys if there are three different permission settings for three different
recipients. Thus generating key is based on number of portion of the content
and number of user." Ans. 8; Berger Fig. 3; ,r 26. That is, we do not find
the recited "first permission setting" and the "indicated first recipient" to be
distinguishable over Berger's disclosure of "associat[ing] encryption keys
with each group of users, [to] encrypt the relevant fragments of content."
Berger ,r 16.
In the Answer, the Examiner further finds Giroux also teaches the
"generate" limitation, because Giroux "teaches that server checks associated
policies for the section ID to verify if the user is authorized to access the
section," so that "each generated key is dedicated for a particular section of
the document and a particular user." Ans. 5; Giroux ,r,r 14, 44, and 50-51.
Appellants do not challenge these reasonable findings.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the
combination of cited references teaches or suggests the limitations of
independent claim 1.
5
Appeal2018---002392
Application 14/584,329
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6