Ex Parte Adam et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 16, 201713898368 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/898,368 05/20/2013 Preston Derek Adam 338855-US-NP 7260 69316 7590 10/18/2017 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2493 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/18/2017 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): u sdocket @ micro soft .com chriochs @microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PRESTON DEREK ADAM, PETER J. NOVOTNEY, NATHAN J. IDE, INNOKENTIY BASMOV, NARDENDRA S. ACHARYA, OCTAVIAN T. URECHE, SAURAV SINHA, GOPINATHAN KANNAN, CHRISTOPHER R. MACAULAY, and MICHAEL J. GRASS1 Appeal 2017-001699 Application 13/898,368 Technology Center 2400 Before LARRY J. HUME, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—10, 12—18, 20, 22, and 23, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 11, 19, and 21 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-001699 Application 13/898,368 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is generally described as follows: An application on a device can communicate with organization services. The application assesses a protection system on the device, which encrypts data obtained by the application from an organization service using an encryption key, and includes with the data an indication of a decryption key usable to decrypt the encrypted data. The protection system maintains a record of the encryption and decryption keys associated with the organization. The data can be stored in various locations on at least the device, and can be read by various applications on at least the device. If the organization determines that data of the organization stored on a device is to no longer be accessible on the device (e.g., is to be revoked from the device), a command is communicated to the device to revoke data associated with the organization. In response to this command, the protection system deletes the decryption key. Abstract.2 Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: receiving, at one or more modules of a computing device, a request to protect data associated with an organization, the request including both an indication of the organization and an indication of the data associated with the organization; encrypting the data using an encryption key associated with both the computing device and the organization, the 2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Dec. 2, 2015 (“Final Act.”), Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed June 28, 2016 (“App. Br.”) and Reply Brief filed Nov. 8, 2016 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 8, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the original Specification filed May 20, 2013 (“Spec.”). 2 Appeal 2017-001699 Application 13/898,368 encryption key having an associated decryption key used to decrypt data encrypted with the encryption key; returning the encrypted data with an indication of the associated decryption key; roaming the encrypted data and associated decryption key to a separate computing device; receiving, at the computing device after encrypting the data, a command to revoke the data associated with the organization; and revoking, in response to the command, the data associated with the organization by deleting from the computing device the decryption key used to decrypt the encrypted data. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1—10, 12—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pigeon et al. (EP 2 448 303 Al; published May 2, 2012) (“Pigeon”), Green et al. (US 2008/0301470 Al; published Dec. 4, 2008) (“Green”), and Ishibashi et al. (US 6,728,379 Bl; issued Apr. 27, 2004) (“Ishibashi”). Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pigeon, Green, Ishibashi, and Linehan et al. (US 5,495,533; issued Feb. 27, 1996) (“Linehan”). ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1—10, 12—18, and 20 under § 103(a) Appellants contend the Examiner3 failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1 at least because “(1) Pigeon, as a whole, teaches away from a modification allowing for ‘roaming the encrypted data 3 Appellants refer to the “Office,” but we instead refer to the “Examiner.” 3 Appeal 2017-001699 Application 13/898,368 and associated decryption key to a separate computing device; (2) the [Examiner’s] proposed modification changes an operating principle of Pigeon; and (3) the [Examiner’s] proposed combination frustrates Pigeon’s intended purpose.” App. Br. 14. Regarding contention (1), Appellants argue Pigeon stores an encryption key in the non-volatile and non-removable memory of a mobile device (citing || 56, 57) and, therefore, according to Appellants, Pigeon discourages and teaches away from any modification allowing for the decryption key to be roamed to a separate computing device.” Id. at 15. Regarding contention (2), Appellants argue “modifying Pigeon to allow for the encryption key to be roamed to a separate computing device would require changing how and where the decryption key is stored on a device.” Id. at 16. Regarding contention (3), Appellants argue “making the encryption key portable and disregarding several of the features Pigeon uses for ‘securing data of a mobile communications device’ frustrates the purpose of Pigeon.” Id. at 16—17. Appellants make these same contentions and arguments with respect to claim 12 (see App. Br. 18—21) and claim 20 (see App. Br. 23—26). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. See App. Br. 14—26. We have also reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments and the evidence of record. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred. The Examiner has provided a detailed and comprehensive response, supported by a preponderance of the evidence based on the teachings of the cited references, to each of Appellants’ contentions and arguments. We adopt as our own, and incorporate herein, the findings and 4 Appeal 2017-001699 Application 13/898,368 reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—15) and in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—5). We also concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 20. Because we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—10 and 13— 18, which are not separately substantively argued, but which Appellants argue are allowable as depending from an allowable base claim, claim 1 and claim 12, respectively. See App. Br. 17, 21—22. Rejection of Claims 22 and 23 under § 103(a) Appellants argue claims 22 and 23 are allowable because each depends from an allowable base claim, claim 1 and claim 12, respectively. App. Br. 26—27. However, because we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 23. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10, 12—18, 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. §41.50(f). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation