Ex Parte Koeppen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2013

10563337 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SIEGRIED KOEPPEN and STEFAN LOEWE
____________

Appeal 2010-008566
Application 10/563,337
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, GLENN J. PERRY, and
BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008566
Application 10/563,337

2

SUMMARY

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 2-16, which are all the claims remaining in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S. C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a secure data storage system in which, after
a server is dialed up, a client program is forwarded to the user. The client program
controls authentication of the user. The storage system on the server is provided
with a locker-type characteristic by establishing folders comprising a specific file
for the safety requirements related thereto. The lockers are distinguished by their
specific function and are only displayed to the user when the safety requirements
are met. (Abstract).
Claim 2 is illustrative.
2. A method for data storage on a server in a telecommunications
network, the telecommunications network providing connectivity between local
computers of users and the server, the method comprising:
issuing, upon request, by an operator of the server, to a first user of the users
a user certificate for access conditions;
providing the user certificate and a secret key to the first user;
accessing the server over an internet;
sending, by the server, a client program to a first local computer of the first
user, the client program enabling an authentication of the first user using the user
certificate and a transmission of at least one further security requirement;
Appeal 2010-008566
Application 10/563,337

3

setting up a personal main folder on the server for the first user, the main
folder having a first special file including a first security requirement defined for
the main folder and first management information so as to provide a main locker;
configuring the personal main folder to have at least one further folder set up
therein, the at least one further folder having a function and a second file including
a second security requirement defined for the at least one further folder and
including second management information so as to provide a functional locker;
displaying the functional locker only if at least one security-relevant
requirement is met so as to provide a locker system having a virtual character,
wherein the functional locker provides a personal locker, wherein a reference to
first files of the first user is storable in the personal locker only by the first user and
displayable only to the first user, and at least one of:
a provisioning locker, wherein a first reference to a different second file
available to another user is storable therein only by the first user; and
a receiving locker, wherein a third file of a second user of the users is
storable therein only by the second user, the receiving locker being configured,
when opened, to provide to the first user a sender user reference relating to the
storage of the third file and to a sender user defined security requirement.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 2-10 and 13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2004/0054750 A1 (“de Jong”) in view of
US Patent Publication 2003/0174842 A 1 (“Challener”).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over de Jong in view of Challener as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view
of US 5,901,227 (“Perlman”).
Appeal 2010-008566
Application 10/563,337

4

CONTENTIONS
Appellants group their arguments against the rejections of claims 2-10 and
13 together. In addressing Appellants’ arguments, we treat claim 2 as illustrative.
Appellants’ arguments focus on the disclosure in de Jong. Although the Examiner
finds that de Jong teaches many of the elements of claim 2, the Final Rejection
does not specify where de Jong teaches the claimed personal locker or receiving
locker. (Ans. 5). Appellants argue that de Jong does not teach or suggest a
personal locker that contains reference to the files of a first user that are
displayable only to that first user, as recited in claim 2. (App. Br. 7).
Appellants note that de Jong distinguishes between a content producer, i.e., a
system which stores digital content or a reference to digital content, and a user who
issues an access request. (App. Br. 7, Reply Br. 3). Appellants argue that de Jong
does not teach or suggest a user storing content or a reference to content. (App. Br.
7). Appellants also argue that de Jong describes a system that includes a content
database or content repository that contains digital content from a producer and a
download manager in communication with a contents rights database to determine
whether a user requesting access to the content is an authorized user. (Id.).
The Examiner finds that, since the content producer originally had access to
the digital content by initially providing the content, the producer is authorized to
access the digital content. (Ans. 19). The Examiner further finds that in de Jong
the description of digital content produced by a content producer may be a URL
and that a token entitling the presenter to access digital content may be limited to a
single redemption, thus making the digital content available to only one user.
(Ans. 18-19).

Appeal 2010-008566
Application 10/563,337

5

ANALYSIS
In de Jong a user device sends a request to a content provisioner which
communicates with a content rights database to determine if the requesting user is
authorized to receive the content. (¶[0102]). If the user is authorized, an issuer
issues a token and a provisioner manager sends an authenticated digital content
request based at least in part on the token to the user device. (Id.). A token
authenticates a specification, such as a URL, of protected digital content.
(¶[0109]). The user device sends the authenticated digital content request to a
content repository, which returns content associated with the authenticated request
if the authenticated digital content request is determined to be valid. (¶[0102]).
Validation of a token involves determining whether the token authenticates a
specification of digital content for which access is requested. (¶[0109]).
The Examiner finds that the digital content is accessible to the content
producer and a user possessing a token, which may be limited to a single use, but
does not otherwise indicate how one presenting a token stores content. (Ans. 18-
19). Claim 2 recites that a reference to the first files of a first user is storable in a
personal locker only by the first user and displayable only to that first user. De
Jong does not describe a personal locker with such characteristics, which would be
at odds with the role of de Jong’s download manager which determines whether
any user requesting access is authorized to access the content. (¶[0170-0175]).
Thus, we agree with Appellants that de Jong does not teach the content storer is the
only user to which a reference to the digital content is displayable. (App. Br. 7-8,
Reply Br. 4).
We further agree with Appellants that de Jong’s disclosure of a token that
can be redeemed only once does not limit the content’s availability to only one
user. (Reply Br. 4). The Examiner points to nothing in de Jong which restricts
Appeal 2010-008566
Application 10/563,337

6

issuance of tokens to access specific content to the first user, as would be required
by the claimed feature that “a reference to first files of the first user is storable in
the personal locker only by the first user and displayable only to the first user.” A
single use token means only that the presenter of a token can use that specific
token only once to access content. The Examiner has not demonstrated that de
Jong precludes a different user from subsequently acquiring a token to access the
same content. The Examiner does not find that this feature is found in Challener.
Thus, we conclude that the Examiner has not demonstrated that the references
teach the limitations recited in claim 2 and we reverse the rejection of claims 2-10
and 13.
Because claims 14-16 depend from claim 2 and include its limitations, we
conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14-16 and we reverse the
rejection of claims 14-16.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 2-10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over de Jong in view of Challener is reversed.
The rejection of claims 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as unpatentable over
de Jong in view of Challener and further in view of Perlman is reversed.

REVERSED

alw