Ex Parte Chen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 7, 2011

10208718 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 7, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte LIQUN CHEN, DAVID PLAQUIN,
and MICHAEL BRIAN STOKER
_____________

Appeal 2009-008328
Application 10/208,718
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-008328
Application 10/208,718

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 22.
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a trusted computer system which secures
sensitive data if there is a change in the trust level in the environment. See
Specification 3-7.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A trusted computing platform (TCP) includes a trusted connection
agent, operable to communicate with a user via a secure channel, and a
trusted environment controller, operable to monitor events occurring within
an environment of the TCP for changes in a level of trust in the environment,
and is operable to store sensitive data of the user in protected storage means
of the TCP on detection of a change in the level of trust.

REFERENCES
Meyers US 5,937,159 Aug. 10, 1999
Jun JP 2001016655 Jan. 19, 2001
BRUCE SCHNEIER, APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY, SECOND EDITION 34-38
(1996)

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 15 and 17 through 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Meyers in view of Jun.
Answer 3-12.1

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
October 31, 2007.
Appeal 2009-008328
Application 10/208,718

3

The Examiner has rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Meyers in view of Jun and Schneier. Answer 12-
13.

ISSUES
Claims 1 through 14 and 22
Appellants’ contentions, on pages 4 through 6 of the Brief,2 present us
with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Meyers and Jun teaches storing sensitive data on detection of a change in
trust level?
Claims 15 and 17 through 21
Appellants’ contentions, on pages 6 and 7 of the Brief, present us with
the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Meyers
and Jun teaches protecting sensitive data in a protected storage means on
detection of a change in trust level?
Claim 16
Appellants’ contentions, on page 8 of the Brief, present us with the
same issue as claim 15.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 through 14 and 22
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 14 and 22. Appellants state that
representative claim 1 recites storing sensitive data on detection of a change

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated July 16, 2007.
Appeal 2009-008328
Application 10/208,718

4

in the level of trust. Brief 5. Appellants argue that Jun does not teach this
feature but rather teaches deleting the sensitive information after completing
an encryption of the secrecy information. Brief 5. The Examiner responds
by finding that Jun teaches, in paragraphs 24 and 25, deleting the sensitive
information only after saving the encrypted sensitive information. Answer
14. We concur with the Examiner’s finding and note that paragraph 26
further supports this finding. Claim 1 recites storing the sensitive
information, but does not recite a limitation which precludes the information
from being deleted after being saved. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 1. Appellants’ arguments on pages 5 and 6 of the Brief directed to
claims 2-14 and 22 present us with the same issue as claim 1. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 14 and 22.

Claim 15 and 17 through 21
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 17 through 21. Appellants argue
claim 15 recites “protecting sensitive data of a user in a protected storage
means” and that deleting the data and replacing it is not protecting it in a
protected storage means. Brief 6. We are not persuaded by this argument.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, we find that Jun teaches storing
the information. Further, Appellants identify on page 3 of the Brief that the
limitation of protecting in a protective storage means is disclosed on page 9,
lines 10-20, and page 9, line 30, to page 10, line 1, of the originally filed
Specification. Page 9 of Appellants’ Specification identifies that “[t]he
sensitive information can be protected by e.g. stopping the process, deleting
Appeal 2009-008328
Application 10/208,718

5

or removing data.” Specification 9:15-16 (emphasis added). Thus, the
claimed act of protecting, when interpreted in light of Appellants’
Specification, is broad enough to encompass deleting information. As such,
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Meyers and Jun teaches protecting sensitive data in a
protected storage means on detection of a change in trust level. Accordingly
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 17 through 21.

Claim 16
Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejection of claim 16 present us
with the same issue as discussed above with respect to claim 15. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 for the reasons discussed above
with respect to claims 15 and 17 through 21.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision
to reject claims 1 through 22.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 22 is
affirmed.

AFFIRMED

babc