Ex Parte Ramarao

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

14695500 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/695,500 04/24/2015
57255 7590 07/02/2018
VAN PELT, YI & JAMES LLP AND
EMC IP Holding Company LLC
10050 N. FOOTHILL BLVD.
SUITE 200
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shreenidhi Ramarao
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.
EMCCP299Cl 4441
EXAMINER
SHAIFER HARRIMAN, DANT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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):
usptocorrespondence@ip-patent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHREENIDHI RAMARAO 1
Appeal2018-001064
Application 14/695,500
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWKSI, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-24. Claim 17 is cancelled. App. Br. 20.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the applicant, EMC Corporation, which assigned the patent
application to EMC IP Holding Company LLC (Patent Assignments Reel
040203, Frames 0001, 0154), identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party
in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2018-001064
Application 14/695,500
Invention
Appellant discloses a method of protecting content in which, "upon
receiving an indication that a threat pattern associated with a content item
has been matched, the protected content 'self-destructs.'" Abstract.
Representative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method of protecting content, comprising:
receiving, at a processor, an indication that a threat pattern
associated with a content item stored at a client has been
matched, wherein the threat pattern includes an unauthorized
attempt to access the content item, wherein the client stores a
plurality of content items, wherein the threat pattern associated
with the content item being different from a threat pattern
associated with at least one of the plurality of content items;
and
in response to receiving the indication that the threat pattern
associated with the content item stored at the client has been
matched:
sending, to a remote server, a latest version of the content item
stored at the client and data of an identity associated with the
unauthorized attempt, and
auto-destructing the content item in a selected manner that
corresponds to the matched threat pattern to render the content
item inaccessible at the client.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 19, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Bell et al. (US 2009/0151005 Al; published June
11, 2009) ("Bell"), Rjaibi (US 2008/0147595 Al; published June 19, 2008)
("Rjaibi"), and Sun et al. (US 2010/0031093 Al; published Feb. 4, 2010).
Final Act. 5-8.
2
Appeal2018-001064
Application 14/695,500
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 24 (in the
alternative with respect to claims 1, 19, and 24) under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over McBrearty et al. (US 2002/0129152 Al; published
Sept. 12, 2002) ("McBrearty"), Bell, Rjaibi, and Sun. Final Act. 8-14.
The Examiner rejects claims 2-5, 7, 8, 20, 21, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over McBrearty, Bell, Rjaibi, Sun,
and Goss et al. (US 2012/0278579 Al; published Nov. 1, 2012) ("Goss").
Final Act. 14--17.
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over McBrearty, Bell, Rjaibi, Sun, and Benson et al. (US
7,830,399 B2; issued Nov. 9, 2010) ("Benson"). Final Act. 17-19.
The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over McBrearty, Bell, Rjaibi, Sun, Goss, and Ranadive et al.
(US 8,516,590 Bl; issued Aug. 20, 2013) ("Ranadive"). Final Act. 19-20.
The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over McBrearty, Bell, Rjaibi, Sun, and Asano et al. (US
2006/0020829 Al; published Jan. 26, 2006) ("Asano"). Final Act. 20-22.
The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over McBrearty, Bell, Rjaibi, Sun, and Melvin (US 8,812,875
Bl; issued Aug. 19, 2014). Final Act. 22-23.
ALTERNATIVE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 19, and 24 alternatively as being
unpatentable over Bell, Rjaibi, and Sun, or as being unpatentable over
McBrearty, Bell, Rjaibi, and Sun. Final Act. 5-12, 14. Because our
decision with respect to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 19, and 24,
based on the combined teachings and suggestions ofMcBrearty, Bell, Rjaibi,
3
Appeal2018-001064
Application 14/695,500
and Sun, is dispositive, we do not reach the Examiner's rejection of these
claims based on Bell, Rjaibi, and Sun. See In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding affirmance of rejection of all claims under Section
103(a) made it unnecessary to reach other grounds of rejection); see also In
re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
McBrearty teaches programming a system "to have ... requested files
destroyed at the first unauthorized request for access to the file contents or at
the second consecutive unauthorized request." McBrearty ,r 8. Bell teaches,
in the context of receiving an identity theft indicator, a method of protecting
information stored on a personal device that includes encoding the
information, transmitting the encoded information to a secure server, and
destroying the information. Bell ,r 6. The Examiner finds McBrearty' s
detection of one or more unauthorized requests for access to a file teaches or
suggests "receiving ... an indication that a threat pattern associated with a
content item stored at a client has been matched, wherein the threat pattern
includes an unauthorized attempt to access the content item." Final Act. 8-9
( citing McBrearty ,r 8); see also Ans. 33-34. The Examiner concludes that
Bell's method of securely backing-up (i.e., encoding information and
transmitting the encoded information to a secure server) information to
protect renders obvious modifying McBrearty to similarly perform a secure
back-up before destroying the improperly requested information. Final Act.
9-10 ( citing Bell ,r,r 5---6); see also Ans. 3 5-3 6.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because:
[a]lthough McBrearty discloses destroying the requested data
files, McBrearty does not disclose "in response to receiving the
indication that the threat pattern associated with the content item
4
Appeal2018-001064
Application 14/695,500
stored at the client has been matched . . . auto-destructing the
content item in a selected manner that corresponds to the
matched threat pattern to render the content item inaccessible
at the client."
App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 8.
Appellant argues Bell does not cure the alleged deficiency because
"Bell merely discloses 'destroying the information on the personal device'"
rather than disclosing different identity theft indicators that each have "a
corresponding manner of 'auto-destructing the [personal information]."'
App. Br. 15 (bracketed text in Appeal Brief); see also Reply Br. 9.
Appellant does not separately argue the remaining claims. However,
Appellant further contends that Goss, relied upon in the Examiner's rejection
of claim 3, does not cure the alleged deficiency of McBrearty and Bell
because the non-destructive secure erasure of data in Goss "is non-specific
to a particular content item." App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 10.
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive because McBrearty
explicitly teaches having "the requested files destroyed at the first
unauthorized request for access to the file contents or at the second
consecutive unauthorized request." McBrearty ,r 8 (emphases added). That
is, rather than merely indiscriminately destroying files in response to
matched threat pattern ( e.g., one or more unauthorized requests for a file),
5
Appeal2018-001064
Application 14/695,500
McBrearty selects the files to destroy in a manner that corresponds to the
matched threat (i.e., the files that were the subject of the unauthorized
requests are destroyed). Id. We agree with the Examiner that Bell's
teachings of securely backing up data to be destroyed renders obvious
modifying McBrearty's file destruction to similarly include secure backup.
See Final Act. 9-10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1 based on the combined teachings and suggestions ofMcBrearty,
Bell, Rjaibi, and Sun. We also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 2-16 and 18-24, based on the combined teachings and
suggestions of McBrearty, Bell, Rjaibi, and Sun, alone or in further
combination with additionally cited references.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16 and 18-24.
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.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6