Ex Parte Botzum et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201613464338 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/464,338 05/04/2012 46320 7590 08/02/2016 CRGOLAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Keys D. Botzum 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. RSW920040176US2 (564CON) CONFIRMATION NO. 4299 EXAMINER DEBNATH, SUMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2495 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2016 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): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEYS D. BOTZUM and PETER D. BIRK Appeal2015-004242 Application 13/464,338 1 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KEVIN C. TROCK, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-9, 13, 15-17, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 2--4, 6, 10-12, 14, 18, and 19 were cancelled. Final Act. 2. Appeal2015-004242 Application 13/464,338 Invention The claimed invention relates to a secure caching technique for shared distributed caches. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method for secure caching in a shared distributed cache shared by a plurality of parties, comprising: initiating a storage of a value in the shared distributed cache by a first party; associating a key with the value; encrypting the key by applying a masking algorithm using a mask value to provide a secure key; storing the value in the shared distributed cache using the secure key; requesting the value from the shared distributed cache by a second party using the key; computing the secure key by encrypting the key using the same mask value and masking algorithm; and retrieving the value from the shared distributed cache using the secure key. Rejections Claims 17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brickell et al. (US 2012/0189119 Al; publ. July 26, 2012) and Matt (US 2003/0026433 Al; publ. Feb. 6, 2003). 2 Appeal2015-004242 Application 13/464,338 Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brickell, Matt, and Graham et al. (US 200710180194 A 1; publ. Aug. 2, 2007). Claims 8, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brickell, Matt, and Harada et al. (US 7, 146,505 B 1; Dec. 5, 2006). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own, ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Section 101- Claims 17 and 20 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17 and 20 under Section 101 because the claims are directed to statutory subject matter. App. Br. 4--7. Appellants argue the Specification specifically describes the nature of a "computer readable storage medium" by including examples of tangible media that can store a program. App. Br. 6. Appellants argue, therefore, one skilled in the art would recognize the difference between a propagation medium and a storage medium. App. Br. 7. The Examiner points out, however, and we agree, there is no limiting 3 Appeal2015-004242 Application 13/464,338 definition of a computer readable storage medium in the Specification. Ans. 3 (citing Spec. i-f 45). Rather, the Specification only provides some examples of tangible media that can store computer programs. Spec. i-f 45. The inclusion of such examples, however, does not act to exclude non- statutory transitory signals from the claimed medium. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential-in-part). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding claims 17 and 20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Section 103 - Independent Claims 1, 9, and 17 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because the combination of Brickell and Matt fails to teach or suggest the limitations recited in these claims. App. Br. 7-14; Reply Br. 2-8. In particular, Appellants argue that Brickell does not teach or suggest the initiating, associating, encrypting, storing, and computing limitations (App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 3---6) and that Matt does not teach or suggest the requesting limitation (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 8). We disagree. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Brickell teaches: each counter value is initialized and each counter value is encrypted using session key and symmetric encryption algorithm; wherein [the] session key is equivalent to the secure key of the instant application and [the] symmetric encryption is equivalent to the "masking algorithm" of the instant application. Brickell teaches initiating storage of a value (i.e. initialize counter) and stored in shared location (i.e. Fig. 1, in encryption unit 100). Encryption unit 100 reads on the shared distributed cache which stores the value using the secure key (i.e. using the session key) (e.g., see, Fig. 2, [0017], [0018], [0019]). 4 Appeal2015-004242 Application 13/464,338 Ans. 6 (citing Brickell). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Matt teaches: a shared distributed storing by a second party (Matt: e.g., [0069] -[0070], node 110 sends the authenticated request to the key distribution center to share a key); retrieving a value from a shared distributed center using a secure key( e.g., fig.4, par 0081, decryptor 412 decrypts E( K.sub.BJ, H(ID.sub.A.parallel. ID.sub.B.parallel.N.sub.A.parall-el.N.sub.B).parallel. K.sub.AB) using K.sub.BJ thereby recovering sharing value from the distributed center). Thus, Matt teaches the concept of sharing values from distributed center by second party. Answer 6, 7 (citing Matt). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that the combination of Brickell and Matt teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17. Appellants' arguments do not provide sufficient evidence or a technical line of reasoning to persuade us that the Examiner's findings constitute error. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Section 103 - Remaining Claims 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, and 20 Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive arguments with respect to the remaining claims 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, and 20. See App. Br. 10. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately."). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 5 Appeal2015-004242 Application 13/464,338 DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-9, 13, 15-17, and 20 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). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation