Friedman, Arie et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 16, 2020

13341865 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/341,865 12/30/2011 Arie Friedman 332475-US-NP 7245
69316 7590 04/16/2020
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
LE, THANH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2432
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/16/2020 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARIE FRIEDMAN, HADAS BITRAN, URI BARASH,
MARC DAVIS, and ODED NAHIR
Appeal 2019-001710
Application 13/341,865
Technology Center 2400
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, BETH Z. SHAW, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 13–22. See Non-Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft
Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001710
Application 13/341,865

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a data policies for online services. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with certain
disputed limitations in italics:
1. A computer-readable medium having executable instructions
to control use of data that is maintained on or by a service, the
executable instructions, when executed by a computer, causing
the computer to perform acts comprising:
presenting a user interface to a user, the user interface
comprising an entity with whom data is to be shared, a plurality
of categories of data and a plurality of purposes for which the
user may grant the entity permission to access the data;
receiving, from the user, an indication of usage restrictions
on data that the service maintains for the user, the indication
comprising a selection for each combination of a category and a
purpose, whether the entity with whom data is to be shared is
permitted to use data falling into the category for the purpose;
applying the usage restrictions to data that the service
maintains for the user; and
enforcing the usage restrictions.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Mathew US 7,590,705 B2 Sept. 15, 2009
Padmanabhan US 2013/0117365 A1 May 9, 2013
Robertson US 8,380,796 B2 Feb. 19, 2013
Krishnamurthy US 2010/0125630 A1 May 20, 2010

REJECTIONS
In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 10,
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre–A IA), second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2019-001710
Application 13/341,865

3
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Padmanabhan and Robertson.
Non-Final Act. 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable
over Padmanabhan, Robertson, and Mathew. Non-Final Act. 8.
Claims 7, 8, 15, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over Padmanabhan, Robertson, and Krishnamurthy.
Non-Final Act. 8.
OPINION
On this record, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections.
We begin by construing a key disputed limitation of independent
claim 1 that recites, in pertinent part, “a plurality of purposes for which the
user may grant an entity permission to access data.” The Specification does
not explicitly define the term “purposes,” but Appellant points to various
portions of the Specification to explain the term. In particular, Appellant
points out that the Specification states:
A user might not object to a game application’s accessing his or
her data for the purpose of facilitating game play with other
users, but might not want the application to use the user’s data
for the purpose of targeted advertising and promotion. Online
services generally do not offer these types of substantive
restrictions on how a user’s data is used.
The subject matter described herein provides techniques
for allowing users to control how their data is used in online
services. Data may be divided into types or categories. For any
given entity, the user who owns the data may specify which
categories of data may be used by that entity, and for what
purpose the entity may use the data. For example, a user
might choose to allow a given entity to use his contact
Appeal 2019-001710
Application 13/341,865

4
information for all purposes other than marketing, and his
browser cookies for maintenance and administrative issues
relating to the on line service. That same user might also store
healthcare or financial data on the site, but might choose to
deny all access to such private data
Spec.¶¶ 15–16; Appeal Br. 15 (quoting Spec. ¶¶ 15–16). Thus, in the
Specification, the “purposes for which the user may grant an entity
permission to access data” is described as “how their data is used.” Spec. ¶
15. Examples given are facilitating game play with other users, or target
advertising. Id. Figures 1 and 2 of the Specification further support this
interpretation.
Moreover, as Appellant points out, the Specification and claims make
a distinction between “categories” and “purposes.” Appeal Br. 15–16; Spec.
Figs. 1, 2. For example, Figure 2 of Appellant’s Specification is reproduced
below.

Appeal 2019-001710
Application 13/341,865

5
Figure 2 of Appellant’s Specification illustrates a user interface 200. Figure
2 shows an entity (Acme) with whom data is to be shared, with rows 202
that illustrate “particular categor[ies] of information,” and columns 204 that
illustrate “purpose[s] for which data could (or could not) be used.” Appeal
Br. 15, 16; Spec. ¶ 26.
Given this interpretation, we fail to see—nor has the Examiner
shown—how Padmanabhan and Robertson, or their combination, teach or
suggest “presenting a user interface to a user, the user interface comprising
an entity with whom data is to be shared, a plurality of categories of data
and a plurality of purposes for which the user may grant the entity
permission to access the data,” as recited in claim 1.
In the Non-Final Rejection, the Examiner relies on Figure 9 of
Robertson to teach the plurality of categories of data and plurality of
purposes. Non-Final Act. 4. Yet, as Appellant points out, Figure 9 Robertson
does not appear to teach a plurality of purposes for which the user may grant
the entity permission to access the data. Appeal Br. 22.
In the Answer, the Examiner cites instead to paragraphs 97–100 of
Padmanabhan as teaching the disputed element. Ans. 12. Yet, this portion of
Padmanabhan does not appear to teach a user interface with a plurality of
purposes of how the user’s data is to be used. Paragraph 97 of Padmanabhan
states that “[a] user who wishes to allow access to his or her social network
account for purposes of aiding the media-sharing controller can provide
login and password information through an appropriate settings screen.”
Figure 7 of Padmanabhan, cited in Paragraph 100, also appears to teach the
concept of sharing information with different levels of friends. Yet, we fail
to see how these portions of Padmanabhan teach a user interface comprising
Appeal 2019-001710
Application 13/341,865

6
an entity with whom data is to be shared, a plurality of categories of data
and a plurality of purposes (i.e., how the data is to be used) for which the
user may grant the entity permission to access the data, as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, on this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under § 103, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9,
10, 13, 14, 16, 21, and 22. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 4, or claims 7, 8, 15, and 17–20, because the Examiner does not
establish that Mathew or Krishnamurthy cures the deficiencies discussed
above.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 6, 9,
10, 13, 14,
16, 21, 22
103 Padmanabhan,
Robertson
1–3, 5, 6,
9, 10, 13,
14, 16, 21,
22
4 103 Padmanabhan,
Robertson, Mathew
4
7, 8, 15, 17–
20
103 Padmanabhan,
Robertson,
Krishnamurthy
7, 8, 15,
17–20
Overall
Outcome:
1–10, 13–
22

REVERSED