Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 7, 201110208718 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 7, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation