Ex Parte Brickell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2013

10686343 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ERNIE BRICKELL, DAVID W.GRAWROCK, and JAMES A.
SUTTON
____________________

Appeal 2010-009089
Application 10/686,3431
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and DAVID C.
McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is Intel Corporation.
2 Claims 3, 11, and 19 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2010-009089
Application 10/686,343

2

Appellants’ invention is a method for permitting the owner or main
user of a computer system to grant sets of permissions/delegations for
control of a system resource such as a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) to
different trusted entities. Embodiments permit a user/owner to establish a list
of acceptable environments, and then have those (and only those)
environments automatically granted TPM ownership and management
privileges. A central authority may set a master ownership token (MOT) and
a list of acceptable environments (Spec. 4). A delegated environment is one
to which the MOT is not communicated. An environment controls a token
(master or delegate) if that environment is the only environment that is given
access to that token (Spec. 6).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of managing authorization tokens within a computer
system comprising:
creating a master owner token indicating a management environment
has full ownership of a trusted platform module within the computer
system;
creating a delegate owner token for a delegated environment, wherein
the delegated environment is an environment to which the master owner
token is not communicated;
communicating the delegate owner token to the delegated
environment; and
allowing the delegated environment access to the trusted platform
module when the delegated environment presents the delegate owner token
to the trusted platform module.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Challener US 7,194,762 B2 Mar. 20, 2007
Lambert US 7,350,204 B2 Mar. 25 2008
Appeal 2010-009089
Application 10/686,343

3
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Challener.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Aug. 13, 2009), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan.
28, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 30, 2009) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
Appellants argue that Lambert does not expressly or inherently teach
that the delegated environment is an environment “to which the master
owner token is not communicated” (App. Br. 11-12). The Examiner finds
that Lambert “does not suggest the parent token is communicated to the
delegated environment since the focus is the restricted token that is
associated to a process/software” (Ans. 6), and thus that Lambert reads on
the claimed “creating a delegate owner token for a delegated environment”
(Ans. 7, 17).
Appellants’ contentions and the Examiner’s findings present us with
the following issue:
Does the combination of Lambert and Challener teach or fairly
suggest creating a delegate owner token for a delegated environment,
wherein the delegated environment is an environment to which the master
owner token is not communicated?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
Appeal 2010-009089
Application 10/686,343

4
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407, (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.”).
ANALYSIS
We select claim 1 as representative of the claims, pursuant to
our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded that Lambert lacks an express or inherent
teaching that “the delegated environment is an environment to which the
master owner token is not communicated,” as Appellants argue (App. Br.
11).
The Examiner finds that Lambert teaches a restricted token having
restricted access or privileges relative to the parent token (Ans. 6, 17;
Lambert col. 4, ll. 1-20), and that Lambert’s restricted token is derived from
a parent token (Ans. 6; col. 8, ll. 40-67). The Examiner finds that these
teachings correspond to creating a delegate owner token for a delegated
environment, the MOT not being communicated to such an environment
(Ans. 7).
Appeal 2010-009089
Application 10/686,343

5
Appellants do not rebut the Examiner’s findings, either in the
principal Brief or the Reply Brief. Appellants’ response is confined to
arguing that Lambert does not contain “an explicit disclosure that the parent
token of Lambert is not communicated to the delegated environment,” nor
an inherent disclosure, “because none of the technical features disclosed by
Lambert would restrict the parent token of Lambert from being
communicated to the delegated environment” (App. Br. 11).
Because Appellants have failed to rebut the factual findings made by
the Examiner, Appellants have not satisfied their burden to establish that the
Examiner erred in finding that Lambert teaches the claimed delegated
environment. We therefore conclude that the combination of Lambert and
Challener fairly suggests the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, and
20. We will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.

CONCLUSION
The combination of Lambert and Challener fairly suggests creating a
delegate owner token for a delegated environment, wherein the delegated
environment is an environment to which the master owner token is not
communicated.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20 is
affirmed.

Appeal 2010-009089
Application 10/686,343

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw