Ex Parte Elteto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2015

12148189 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LASZLO ELTETO
____________________

Appeal 2012-004995
Application No. 12/148,1891
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, DAVID M. KOHUT, and ANDREW J. DILLON,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is a method for tracking usage data to detect
and prevent “rollback,” i.e., restoration of a system to an earlier state,
particularly to evade a restriction on the repeated or continued use of a
resource. Usage data comprising a sequence number or other sequence
value is saved in a first record as usage occurs. Less frequently, the

1 The real party in interest is SafeNet, Inc.
2 Claims 2 and 14 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2012-004995
Application No. 12/148,189

2
sequence number is also saved to protected (hidden, inaccessible, and/or
persistent) storage. The sequence number saved in usage data is
occasionally compared with the sequence number in the protected storage.
If the sequence number in the usage data is earlier than the sequence number
in the protected storage, it is inferred that a rollback has taken place. If the
sequence number in the protected storage is completely different from the
sequence number in the usage data, or is missing or corrupted, it is inferred
that tampering may have taken place (Spec. 1-2).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:

1. A method of detecting rollback of usage data, comprising:
recording usage data and a sequence value in a database;
saving a copy of the sequence value to protected storage other
than said database other than while saving of a copy of an item
the usage of which was recorded in the database;
advancing the sequence value in the database;
comparing the copy of the sequence value in the protected
storage with the sequence value in the database;
determining whether the result of the comparison is consistent
with normal operation of the database since a previous save to
protected storage; and
repeating the saving, advancing, and compairing at intervals
while running an item the usage of which was recorded in the
database.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
East et al. US 2004/0267809 A1 Dec. 30, 2004
Ofer et al. US 2006/0218204 A1 Sept. 28, 2006
Kapoor et al. US 2007/0220032 A1 Sept. 20, 2007
Anguelov US 2008/0201390 A1 Aug. 21, 2008
Appeal 2012-004995
Application No. 12/148,189

3
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, 13, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Ofer in view of Anguelov.3
Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ofer in view of Anguelov and Kapoor.
Claims 7, 8, 12, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ofer in view of Anguelov and East.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Oct. 18, 2011), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec.
23, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 9, 2011) for
their respective details.
ISSUES
Appellant contends, inter alia, that Ofer does not teach saving a copy
of the sequence value to protected storage (App. Br. 9). Appellant further
argues that Ofer fails to disclose saving a copy of the sequence value to
storage other than the database, other than while saving a copy of an item the
usage of which was recorded in the database (Id.).4
Appellant’s contention presents us with the following issues:

3 We consider the Examiner’s non-inclusion of the previous § 102 rejection
in the “Claim Rejections” section of the Examiner’s Answer, together with
the Examiner’s lack of discussion of Appellants’ arguments against
anticipation in the “Response to Arguments” section, to be a tacit
withdrawal of the previous § 102 rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 over
Ofer.
4 Appellant’s procedural arguments (App. Br. 6-7) are directed to
petitionable, rather than appealable, matters. As such, they are not properly
before this Board and we do not reach them.
Appeal 2012-004995
Application No. 12/148,189

4
1. Does Ofer disclose repeatedly saving a copy of the sequence value
to protected storage?
2. Does Ofer disclose saving a copy of the sequence value to storage
other than the database, other than while saving a copy of an item the usage
of which was recorded in the database?
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 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
CLAIMS 1, 3-5, 9-11, 13, AND 15-17
The independent claims under appeal (1, 9, and 13) each recite saving
a copy of the sequence value to protected storage. Appellant’s Specification
defines protected storage as “hidden, inaccessible, and/or persistent” (Spec.
1). Each independent claim also recites said repeated saving of the sequence
Appeal 2012-004995
Application No. 12/148,189

5
value is performed to protected storage that does not contain a copy of an
item the usage of which was recorded in the database.5
We agree with Appellant that Ofer does not disclose saving a copy of
the sequence value to protected storage. Ofer discloses saving the log
sequence number (LSN) as part of the standby database (App. Br. 9, Reply
Br. 4). We find no disclosure in Ofer that the standby database is considered
hidden, inaccessible, and/or persistent such that it could be interpreted to
constitute “protected storage.” We find, as Appellant asserts, that Ofer saves
only into the ordinary storage of the two databases (Reply Br. 4).
We also agree with Appellant that Ofer does not disclose saving a
copy of the sequence value “other than while saving of a copy of an item the
usage of which was recorded in the database,” as the independent claims
recite. Ofer discloses that “[p]eriodically, the primary DBMS 104 transmits
(through the network 152) a portion of the log to the standby DBMS 134
that will then read the transmitted log data and update the standby database
136” (¶ 38). In the database compatibility operation, “LSN-P is assigned ‘a
comparison LSN’ of the primary database 106 and LSN-S is assigned a
current LSN (i.e., an end of log position) of the standby database 136” (¶
42). “The comparison LSN is generally set to reflect the current end of log
position of the primary instance at the time of disconnection” (¶ 43). We
agree with Appellant that Ofer thus saves the LSN only as part of the normal
saving of the database (App. Br. 9).
We have reviewed Anguelov and we find that it does not supply the
teachings found to be lacking from Ofer. Accordingly, we find that the
combination of Ofer and Anguelov fails to teach all the limitations of the

5 The language varies slightly between independent claims 1, 9, and 13.
Appeal 2012-004995
Application No. 12/148,189

6
claimed invention. We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 3-5, 9-11, 13, and 15-17 over Ofer in view of Anguelov. We do not
sustain the rejection.
CLAIMS 6 AND 18
Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Claim 18 depends from claim 13. We
do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, supra.
We have reviewed Kapoor, and we find that it does not remedy the
noted deficiencies of Ofer in combination with Anguelov. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 18, for the reasons given supra with
respect to independent claims 1 and 13.

CLAIMS 7, 8, 12, 19, AND 20
Claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 1. Claim 12 depends from claim 9.
Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 13. We do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, and 13, supra.
We have reviewed East, and we find that it does not remedy the noted
deficiencies of Ofer in combination with Anguelov. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, 12, 19, and 20, for the reasons given
supra with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 13.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Ofer does not disclose repeatedly saving a copy of the sequence
value to protected storage.
2. Ofer does not disclose saving a copy of the sequence value to
storage other than the database, other than while saving a copy of an item the
usage of which was recorded in the database.

Appeal 2012-004995
Application No. 12/148,189

7
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

lv