Ex Parte Botzum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13464338 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

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