Ex Parte McGloin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2016

12828988 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/828,988 07/01/2010
57101 7590 06/28/2016
IBM CORPORATION - SVL (JVL)
C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN
6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT.
AUSTIN, TX 78739
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Alexander McGloin
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.
A US920100l62US1 7751
EXAMINER
JHA VER!, JA YESH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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):
LESLIE@VL-PATENTS.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK ALEXANDER MCGLOIN,
OLGIERD STANISLAW PIECZUL, and MARY ELLEN ZURKO
Appeal2015-002101
Application 12/828,988
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to identifying and performing one or
more privacy actions. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants'
invention, and is reproduced below:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-002101
Application 12/828,988
1. A method compnsmg:
receiving, at a source location, a request from a requestor,
wherein the requestor is at a target location;
retrieving one or more data elements from a data store
responsive to the request;
identifying a privacy data type category corresponding to
one or more of the retrieved data elements;
identifying a data flow category based on data flowing
from the source location to the target location, wherein the source
location is a first jurisdiction associated with one or more data
privacy export rules and wherein the target location is a second
jurisdiction associated with one or more data privacy import
rules; and
performing, by an information-handling system, one or
more privacy actions modifying one or more of the data elements
based on the privacy data type category of the data elements and
the data flow category so that the modified data elements comply
with the one or more data privacy export rules associated with
the first jurisdiction and the one or more data privacy import
rules associated with the target location.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-20, 22-25, and 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cha et al. (US 2008/0189250 Al; pub.
Aug. 7, 2008) ("Cha") in view ofMerkow et al. (US 2011/0016219 Al; pub.
Jan. 20, 2011) ("Merkow"). (See Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 9, 2014)
("Final Act.") 7-17.)
Claims 21 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cha in view ofMerkow and further in view ofDuri et al.
(US 2008/0307491 Al; pub. Dec. 11, 2008) ("Duri"). 2 (See Final Act. 17.)
2 We observe that both the Examiner and Appellants fail to list Merkow for
this rejection (see Final Act. 17; App. Br. 8) even though the Examiner and
2
Appeal2015-002101
Application 12/828,988
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments.
Claims 1-17
Argument One
Cha Does Not Teach Data Flow Category
Appellants contend that Cha fails to "teach or suggest BOTH
'identifying a privacy data type category ... , ' AND 'identifying a data flow
category ... "' limitations of claim 1. (App. Br. 11; see also id. at 8-11;
Reply Br. 2--4.) Specifically, Appellants contend that:
Cha discloses navigating through different branches of its
taxonomy hierarchy using IF /THEN rules that may be further
limited by a user at runtime (Cha, paragraphs 0052-0054).
However, the rules are data-driven, and there [sic] no indication
that Cha identifies a "data flow category," as taught and claimed
by Appellant [sic] in independent claim 1.
(Reply Br. 3.) In essence, Appellants are contending that Cha's taxonomy
hierarchy using IF /THEN rules are not the "data flow category" as claimed.
The Examiner disagrees and first finds that
In the absence of further details of how a data flow category is
identified and how or in what way the identification is based on
data flowing ... , the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claimed limitation in light of specification is that a data flow
category (data type category for data flowing in the process) is
identified based on any data (or when any data is) flowing from
the source to the target.
Appellants addressed these claims using the combination of Cha, Merkow,
and Duri (see Final Act. 12-17; App. Br. 12-15).
3
Appeal2015-002101
Application 12/828,988
(Ans. 10, underline in original, italics added.) Appellants do not propose a
construction for the term but instead argue that the Examiner's construction
is incorrect. (Reply Br. 3.) Specifically, according to Appellants:
However, the Examiner then asserts that the "broadest
reasonable interpretation' of Appellant's claimed limitation "in
light of the specification" is that a data flow category is identified
based on any data that is flowing from any target to any location
(see Examiner's Answer, page 10). This is simply not the case.
Appellant specifically teaches and claims "identifying a data
flow category based on data flowing from the source location to
the target location," and Appellant further teaches and claims
"wherein the source location is a first jurisdiction associated with
one or more data privacy export rules and wherein the target
location is a second jurisdiction associated with one or more data
privacy import rules."
(See id., emphasis added.) The Examiner, however, explains that data is
"flowing from the source to the target." (See Ans. 10.) Furthermore, we are
not persuaded the Examiner's interpretation of the term is either overbroad
or unreasonable. We also agree with the Examiner's findings that Cha
discloses data flow category as claimed and the limitations at issue:
data classification "branches" are analogous to "identified" flow
categories such as data categories as per taxonomy hierarchy,
because when "data elements" are requested by the target, data
flows from the source to the target and in tum invokes the logic
that determines data elements that could be presented based on
source jurisdiction rules/policies. During this determination, the
program logic branches to a particular branch of data category
based on taxonomy and rules. In other words, data flow category
(branch) is identified when a specific branching takes place
during data element selection (e.g.[,] using IF-THEN code logic)
in response to query request. Thus, a real-time
categorization/selection of data elements takes place as data
flows during data retrieval. Furthermore, as disclosed in the cited
sections of Cha, data modification (or suppression) also occurs
based on applied rules.
4
Appeal2015-002101
Application 12/828,988
/ A.. A -1 I"\ l"'i1 T""I • {") .-r.-r Al !""' Al {") !""' Al !""' !""' !""',..., f -1 f A 1 ,..., I"\ "- r-T""i1
~Ans. ':1---lL; Gna, t<1g. cs, 1111 Lf.J, Lf.