Ex Parte Dodeja et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 24, 2018

13976861 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/976,861 01/14/2014
45209 7590 04/26/2018
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/Mission
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
Rakesh Dodeja
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
42P39867 3744
EXAMINER
PEARSON, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2018 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):
Database_ Group@bstz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAKESH DODEJA, ALEX DE VRIES,
ASH OK SUNDER RAJAN, HEMAPRABHU JAY ANNA,
WILLIAM J. TISO, KEVIN W. BROSS, and
ROBERT HUNTER
Appeal 2017-008751 1
Application 13/97 6,861
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Intel Corporation is identified as the real party in interest. Brief 3.
Appeal2017-008751
Application 13/976,861
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to "computing device security, and more
particularly to integrity checking for trust provisioning" (Specification ,r 1)
so that "[t]he computing device that is the target of the integrity
determination can be ensured to be secure prior to allowing it to provide its
service" (Specification ,r 13). Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Claim
1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 2
1. A method comprising:
determining, at a computing device, a device profile that
identifies a single-purpose or a multipurpose target device, as
well as components of the target device;
determining, at the computing device, a hash mask that
defines a scope of hash computation, including identifying all
components of the target device whose signatures are to be
included in a trusted hash computation;
computing, at the computing device, the trusted hash
computation based on the signatures of the identified
components to create a signature having the defined scope;
receiving, at the computing device, an updated profile of
the target device including an update to one or more of the
identified components; and
re-computing, at the computing device, the trusted hash
computation based on the signatures of the updated identified
components to create a second signature having the defined
scope.
2 We refer to the claim listing in the Response to Non-Compliant Appeal
Brief, filed April 11, 2016.
2
Appeal2017-008751
Application 13/976,861
References and Rejections
The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Ta
Takekawa
Etchegoyen
Boyer
US 2005/0262086 Al
US 2009/0271637 Al
US 2011/0009092 Al
US 2012/0089841 Al
Nov. 24, 2005
Oct. 29, 2009
Jan. 13, 2011
Apr. 12, 2012
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 12-14, 17, 19, 20, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Ta and Boyer. Final Action
2-7.
Claims 2, 6, 11, 15, and 21-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Ta, Boyer, and Takekawa. Final Action
7-8.
Claims 7, 9, 16, 18, 23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Ta, Boyer, Takekawa, and Etchegoyen. Final
Action 8-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised. Any other arguments Appellants could have
made, but chose not to make, are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365-66 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections").
Appellants do not separately argue the independent claims. See Brief
3
Appeal2017-008751
Application 13/976,861
8-11. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. We
adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs, because "Ta and Boyer each fail
to disclose or suggest a process of receiving an updated profile of a target
device that includes an update to one or more identified components in the
device." Brief 10. Specifically, Appellants present the following
arguments:
Appellant[ s] submit[] that Ta discloses an integrity profile
that provides integrity certification and device verification
authentication about applications that are to be used by a target
device and/or it's [sic] components. See Ta at paragraphs [0040]
- [0043]. Nevertheless, there is no disclosure or suggestion in
Ta that the integrity profile identifies a target device and [its]
components (e.g., a device that is going to use the components.)
Since Ta and Boyer each fail to disclose or suggest a
process of receiving an updated profile of a target device
including an update to one or more of the identified components,
any combination of the references would necessarily fail to
disclose or suggest such a process, any combination of the
references would necessarily fail to disclose or suggest the
process.
Brief 10-11.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive for failing to address the
Examiner's findings. See Brief 9-10; In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art."). For example, the Examiner
4
Appeal2017-008751
Application 13/976,861
finds, and Appellants do not challenge, that Ta teaches the disputed
limitations, because Ta teaches a "verification device determines and
certifies 'an integrity profile of one or more applications, systems, and/or
system components."' Answer 3 ( quoting Ta ,r 58; see also ,r,r 36, 55). The
Examiner's findings are reasonable, as Ta teaches "establish[ing] a profile of
a set of applications and systems that are allowed to consume ... [ a content
provider's] content, and verify on a user system, according to the profile,
that the set of applications and systems on the user system are authentic."
Ta ,r 36; see also Ta ,r 58.
Additionally, Appellants provide a description of Boyer's teachings,
but fail to compare and contrast the claim limitations with the Examiner's
specific findings regarding the teachings of Boyer, or regarding the
Examiner's combination of Ta and Boyer. See Brief 9-11. The Examiner
finds that the combination of Ta and Boyer teaches or suggests "receiving, at
the computing device, an updated profile of the target device including an
update to one or more of the identified components." Answer 4--5.
Appellants argue "[s]ince Ta and Boyer each fail to disclose or suggest [the
receiving limitation], any combination of the references would necessarily
fail to disclose or suggest" the receiving limitation. Brief 11. One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F .2d
413,426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
Thus, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 1 as obvious in view of Ta and
Boyer. See Final Action 4; Answer 4--5; Ta Figure 4A; Boyer ,r,r 53-54.
5
Appeal2017-008751
Application 13/976,861
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and
19. Appellants advance no further substantive arguments for the dependent
claims. See Brief 11. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of
these claims for the same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
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