Ex Parte Kiriyama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

13961222 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/961,222 08/07/2013 Hayato Kiriyama
52021 7590 03/28/2018
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
JP920120058US 1_8150-0406 9439
EXAMINER
FAROOQUI, QUAZI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAYATO KIRIYAMA, TOMOHIRO SHIOYA, and
TADASHI TSUMURA
Appeal2017-001597
Application 13/961,222
Technology Center 2400
Before: MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-001597
Application 13/961,222
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to determining content of access
control of data by a plurality of classification engines. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system that determines the content of access control to data
based on the classification results obtained by classifying data,
the system comprising:
a processor programmed to initiate executable operations
compnsmg:
recording setting information that sets a plurality of classification
engines for predetermined conditions related to either data or
access to data;
acquiring data subject to the access when access to the data
subject to access is requested;
indicating classification of data subject to access by the plurality
of classification engines set for the predetermined conditions in
the recorded setting information responsive to satisfaction of the
predetermined conditions for either the data subject to access or
access to the data subject to the access; and
determining the content of access control to the data subject to
the access based on classification results obtained by the plurality
of classification engines classifying data subject to access based
on the indicating classification of data.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bilger
Faitelson
US 2009/0198697 Al Aug. 6, 2009
US 2012/0215780 Al Aug. 23, 2012
2
Appeal2017-001597
Application 13/961,222
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bilger.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bilger in view of Faitelson.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if
Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas,
551F.3d1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments
Appellants failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 17, and 18 rejected under 35 US.C §102(b)
Appellants argue that Bilger does not disclose "a plurality of
classification engines" as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 11-16). In
particular Appellants provide definitions to support that an "engine" is used
to describe a complex operational piece of software used for a specific
purpose using "rules of logic" and a "knowledge base" (App. Br. 15).
Appellants argue that the Examiner committed reversible error by conflating
the claimed "classification engine" with a single rule to support the finding
of multiple rules described by Bilger as being tantamount to "a plurality of
classification engines" (see App. Br. 15).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Examined claim
terms are given their broadest reasonable meaning utilizing ordinary usage
3
Appeal2017-001597
Application 13/961,222
as such claim terms would be understood by one skilled in the art by way of
definitions and the written description. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
We tum to Appellants' own Specification to ascertain the meaning of
the terms "classification engines." As shown in Figure 1 and the
corresponding written disclosure, there is shown a "classification engine for
individuals" and a "classification engine for the company" wherein
documents are evaluated for confidentiality and categorized by either the
individual classifier (i.e., not confidential) or the company classifier (i.e.,
confidential) to change, for example, the classification of an outgoing e-mail
from not confidential to confidential. See Fig. 1 and Spec. paras. 47-50.
Thus, each engine is a set of rules that is used to classify a certain document
and a plurality of such engines are used to change the classification of a
document.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Bilger discloses Data Control
Rules (DCRs) 112 which represent unified data-handling policies expressed
in terms of Business Data Classification (BDC) 132 having multiple sets of
rules (i.e., a plurality of engines) to support a change of a data type's
protection level from standard level of protection to high level of protection
(i.e., set of rules to change operating budget from standard to high level of
protection). See Ans. 4--5 citing to paras. 23, 53; and Figs. lB and 6A.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that it is the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) that changes the standard level of protection to a
high level of protection, and not "multiple rules or engines" (Reply Br. 5).
The Examiner cites to the respective section stating "[ t ]his determination by
the CFO is completed without the CFO having knowledge of any of the
details of data protection mechanisms" and the same section states that "a
4
Appeal2017-001597
Application 13/961,222
member of the enterprise's IT domain translates the CFO' s determination
regarding the operating budget into technical requirements" (emphasis
added) (see Ans. 5 and para. 53). These technical requirements are
tantamount to sets of rules for changing the status of protection from
standard to high. More persuasively, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that
map 600 displays different class contents and their access permissions being
managed by multiple classification rules or software engines (see Ans. 5 and
Fig. 6A).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Bilger discloses plural
classification engines with classification rules to set or change a document's
level of protection.
Accordingly we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for the
same reasons the rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11-15, 1 7 and 18.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 rejected under 35 US.C §103(a)
Appellants do not set forth any additional arguments with respect to
claims 4, 10, and 16. Accordingly we also affirm the Examiner's rejections
of these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5