Ex Parte Stronger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

13190377 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/190,377 07/25/2011
758 7590 09/04/2018
FENWICK & WEST LLP
SILICON VALLEY CENTER
801 CALIFORNIA STREET
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brad A. Stronger
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.
31371-19329/US 2012
EXAMINER
AMIN,MUSTAFAA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
PTOC@Fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRAD A. STRONGER and ARIJIT SENGUPTA 1
Appeal 2018-001366
Application 13/190,377
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-18. Claims 8-10 are
canceled (see Claims Appendix), and claim 19 is withdrawn (see Non-Final
Act. 3--4). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants name Beyond Core, Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2018-001366
Application 13/ 190,377
The present invention relates generally to processing documents
containing restricted information (see Spec., Abstract).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for securely
storing one or more documents, the documents containing
restricted information, the restricted information not to be
disclosed at a minimally secure location, the method
comprising software executing on a hardware computer system
to execute the steps of:
segmenting fields in the documents into critical
sections, sub-critical sections, and noncritical sections; each
critical section containing data that is defined by information
security rules as individually corresponding to restricted
information, each sub-critical section containing data that is
defined by information security rules as individually not
corresponding to restricted information but collectively with
other sub-critical sections as corresponding to restricted
information, and each non-critical section containing data that
is defined by information security rules as not corresponding to
restricted information; wherein segmenting the fields in the
documents further depends on a frequency of occurrence of
data contained in the fields;
effecting storage of the critical sections at secure
location(s), the critical sections stored in a manner that
associates critical sections with first keys;
effecting storage of the sub-critical and the non-
critical sections at minimally secure location( s ), said sections
stored in a manner that associates said sections with second
keys;
wherein the first and second keys form keysets that
can be used to reassemble the sections of a document.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1---6 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
2
Appeal 2018-001366
Application 13/ 190,377
being unpatentable over Redlich (US 2003/0120949 Al, June 26, 2003) and
Guo (US 2002/0052901 Al, May 2, 2002); and
R2. Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Redlich, Guo, and Bargeron (US 2005/0165747 Al, July
28, 2005).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of
Redlich and Guo teaches or suggests segmenting fields in the document into
sub-critical sections and effecting storage of the sub-critical sections at
minimally secure location( s ), as set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend that "Redlich identifies only two classes of data:
extracted data and remainder data, which at best corresponds to claim 1 's
critical sections and non-critical sections .... while claim 1 recites three
classes of fields ( critical, sub-critical and non-critical)" (App. Br. 6).
Appellants further contend that "even if Redlich's different granularity
filters are considered to be some form of sub-critical, Redlich does not then
'effect storage of the sub-critical ... sections at minimally secure
location(s),' as recited in claim I" (App. Br. 7-8).
In response, the Examiner finds that Redlich "discloses 'critical' (i.e.,
'extracted text') and 'non-critical' (i.e. common text) sections .... where
the extracted sensitive [data] [ may be] stored in different storage areas
3
Appeal 2018-001366
Application 13/ 190,377
depending on a security level associated with the extracted sensitive data"
(Ans. 4) and Redlich "clearly discloses 'segmenting fields in the documents
into ... , sub-critical sections (e.g., words with characters that are not
necessarily critical individually; however critical together)" (id. at 5)
( emphasis omitted). We disagree with the Examiner.
For instance, Redlich discloses:
The method for securing data in a computer system in one
embodiment includes ... filtering the data input ... and
extracting the security sensitive data. The extracted data is
separated from the remainder data and is separately stored ....
Persons with low level security clearance would only be
permitted to have access to low level extracted data (low level
security sensitive data) and the common data. Persons with
high level security clearances would be permitted access to the
entire document reconstituted from extracted data and the
remainder data. (i-f 31 ).
The method and the computer media containing programming
instructions includes filtering data from the data input
computer, extracting security sensitive words, phrases,
characters, icons, or data objects and forming subsets of
extracted data and remainder data. The subsets of extracted
data are stored in one or more computer memories in the
network identified as extracted stores. The remainder data is
also stored in the network if necessary. (i-f 32).
Further, multiple security levels would require, in addition to
remainder text document or data 104, a plurality of extracted
data documents 106. The common or remainder text document
or data 104 would still be stored in remainder computer storage
A-com 108. However, each extracted data document 106
would be stored in a respective, separate computer memory
segment or computer B-ext 110. Separate storage of a plurality
of extracted data at multiple, separate locations in B-ext is one
of the many important features of the present invention.
(i1104).
4
Appeal 2018-001366
Application 13/ 190,377
In other words, Redlich merely discloses that input data can be filtered
by words, phrases, characters, icons, or data objects and separately storing
the extracted data from the remainder data, whereas the extracted data can
further separated by security levels.
Appellants' Specification explains that "[ e Jach sub-critical segment
includes at least one instance of a data field from a set of fields that
collectively corresponds to the restricted information and never includes all
of the fields of a set of fields that collectively corresponds to restricted
information" (Spec. 16:4--7). In other words, the sub-critical segment
cannot include the entire restricted word or the entire restricted phrase, only
a portion thereof.
With this in mind, Appellants contend that in Redlich "there is no
recognition that extracted information can be broken into smaller non-
extracted components and stored at less secure facilities" (App. Br. 8).
Stated differently, the question is: Does Redlich take the extracted word,
break it into characters, and store less than all characters in a segment, in a
less secure facility ( or take the extracted phrase, break it into words, and
store less than all of the words in a segment, in a less secure facility)? We
find that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that Redlich stores
individual characters of a restricted word, or individual words of a restricted
phrase, into sub-critical segments that are stored at minimally secure
location(s) i.e., locations where access to restricted information is not
allowed (see Spec. 2:20-21; see also 8:27-28). In other words, the
Examiner has not shown Redlich teaches "segmenting fields into ... sub-
critical sections," which "contain[] data defined by information security
5
Appeal 2018-001366
Application 13/ 190,377
rules as individually not corresponding to restricted information but
collectively with other sub-critical sections as corresponding to restricted
information," and "effecting storage of the sub-critical ... sections at
minimally secure location( s ), " as recited in claim 1.
Instead, Redlich merely discloses that "the extracted data may be
parsed or further separated based on a plurality of security clearances ...
with portion of the extracted data presented to the user based upon the user's
security clearance" (i-f 133). For example, in Redlich "[p ]ersons with low
level security clearance would only be permitted to have access to low level
extracted data (low level security sensitive data)" (i-f 31 ). In other words, the
extracted data in Redlich is parsed further based on security levels, not
parsed further based on individual characters or words, as proffered by the
Examiner.
Furthermore, all of Redlich's extracted data must be stored at secure
locations because all of the extracted data appears to have some type of
security level attached thereto, e.g., high security level or low security level.
On the other hand, the claimed sub-critical segments individually do not
include restricted information, and hence are stored at minimally secure
locations.
For at least the reasons noted supra, we find that the Examiner has not
shown that Redlich teaches/suggests segmenting fields in the documents into
sub-critical sections and effecting storage of the sub-critical sections at
minimally secure location(s), as set forth in each of the independent claims
1, 11, and 12. The Examiner also has not found that any of the other
references of record teach this feature. Since we agree with at least one of
the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of
6
Appeal 2018-001366
Application 13/ 190,377
Appellants' other arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-7 and 11-18.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 and 11-18 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7