Ex Parte Finger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

13649261 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/649,261 10/11/2012 Laurence B. Finger
33164 7590 09/01/2016
RAYTHEON COMPANY
C/O DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP
354A TURNPIKE STREET
SUITE 301A
CANTON, MA 02021
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.
RTNWEB-005AUS 1084
EXAMINER
KU, SHIUH-HUEI P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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):
docketing@dc-m.com
amk@dc-m.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAURENCE B. FINGER, DAVID E. MUSSMANN,
JASON M. FANNIN, NOEL E. JOHNSON, andALLEN M. SCHWARTZ
Appeal2015-005817
Application 13/649,261
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-8 and 10-22. App. Br. 2. Claim 9
is cancelled. Id. at 18.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Raytheon Company, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
Appeal2015-005817
Application 13/649,261
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems, methods, and computer program
products for providing operating system (O/S) redundancy in a computing
system. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1, 10, and 15 are independent. The claims have not been
argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some
formatting added:
1. An integrated circuit (IC) comprising:
a secure router configured as a trust anchor configured to
perform a function that is trusted;
a non-volatile random access memory (RAM) direct
memory access (DMA) channel coupled to the secure router;
a first DMA coupled to the secure router and configured
to receive data with a first classification;
a second DMA coupled to the secure router and
configured to receive data with a second classification, the data
with the first classification requires more secure protection than
the data with the second classification;
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 23, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed May 18, 2015, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
March 18, 2015, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed June 20, 2014, "Final
Act."), and the Specification (filed October 11, 2012, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
2
Appeal2015-005817
Application 13/649,261
a secure boot/key controller coupled to the secure router
and configured as a trust anchor to boot the IC securely; and
a processor coupled to the secure router and configured
to encrypt data, to store protocols, to store instructions to detect
malicious intrusions on the IC and to provide key management.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Zaidi, et al.,
Kim
Goss, et al.,
Harp, et al.,
US 2004/0022107 Al
US 6,990,198 B2
US 2007 /0294496 Al
US 2012/0023562 Al
Feb. 5,2004
Jan.24,2006
Dec. 20, 2007
Filed July 26, 2010
Patrick R. Gallagher, Jr., A Guide to Understanding Security Modeling in
Trusted Systems, October 1992.
The claims stand rejected as follows: 3
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Zaidi and Goss. Final Act.
5-17.
2. Claims 2, 14, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zaidi, Goss, and Kim. Final Act. 17-18.
3 The rejection of Claims 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (see Final Act. 3--4)
is not repeated or addressed in the Examiner's Answer. Any rejection not
repeated and discussed in the answer may be taken by the Board as having
been withdrawn. Ex Parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180 (Bd. App. 1957).
3
Appeal2015-005817
Application 13/649,261
3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zaidi, Goss, and Harp. Final Act. 19.
4. Claims 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zaidi, Goss, and Gallagher. Final Act. 19-20.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-8 and 10-22 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred.
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7-15.
CLAIMS 1-8 AND 10-22:
OBVIOUSNESS OVER ZAIDI, Goss, KIM, HARP' AND GALLAGHER
Secure router.
Appellants argue these claims as a group in view of the limitations of
Claim 1. App. Br. 9, 10, 14, 15.
The Examiner finds Zaidi teaches an IC comprising a secure router,
i.e., arbiter 142, as recited in Claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing Zaidi, i-f 57).
Appellants contend that arbiter 142 "merely 'takes requests from each of the
channels and responds with a grant when an access can be accommodated.'"
App. Br. 10-11 (citing Zaidi, i-f 57). Appellants argue a router "is a
networking device, commonly specialized hardware, that forwards data
packets between computer networks." Id. at 11.
The Examiner's Answer finds "[a]ppellant's use of lexicography has
overridden the prior art definition," (Ans. 9) because the Specification does
not discuss any aspect of network routing or packet handling. Id. at 8.
4
Appeal2015-005817
Application 13/649,261
Therefore, the Examiner finds the claimed "secure router" "is some manner
of bus manager, much like the bus arbiter[] of Zaidi." Id. at 8-9 (citing
Zaidi, i-f 50).
Appellants contend, contrary to the Examiner, that their Specification
does not change the meaning of a secure router. Reply Br. 3--4. Moreover,
Appellants traverse the Examiner's finding that the secure router in
Appellants' Specification is not part of a computer network which therefore,
changes the meaning of a router. Id. at 4. Appellants argue that one of
ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand the secure router in the
Specification is used to receive and transmit data to other computer networks
(e.g., for voice and data communications) that are connected to IC 100. Id.
(citing Spec., p. 1, 11. 3-10; p. 3, 11. 2-11).
The Specification discloses devices "connected through an internet
protocol (IP)." Spec. p. 1, 1. 3. Such devices are disclosed to include "smart
phones," "mobile devices," and "medical monitoring equipment." Spec. p.
1, 11. 5-9. We find a person of skill in the internet arts would understand that
devices connected via an internet protocol would require a router. In
accordance with such expectation, the Specification discloses an integrated
circuit (IC) that includes a "secure router." Id.
Appellants disclose an IC, "such as an application-specific integrated
circuit (ASIC)" that provides voice and data security for the global market.
Spec. p. 3, 11. 2-5. We agree with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the
art would clearly understand that a secure router that provides voice and data
security for the global market is used to receive and transmit data to other
computer networks. See Reply Br. 4. We disagree with the Examiner's
finding that a person of ordinary skill in the internet arts would understand
5
Appeal2015-005817
Application 13/649,261
the disclosed router to be "some manner of bus manager, much like the bus
arbiter[] of Zaidi." Ans. 8-9.
Secure router configured as a trust anchor.
Appellants contend there is no disclosure in Zaidi teaching bus arbiter
142 is "secure." App. Br. 11.
The Examiner finds the claim term "trust anchor" is "reasonably
interpreted as any element which affords any measure of trust, such as
encryption." Final. Act. 2.
"A trust anchor is an authoritative entity represented by a public key
and associated data."4 In view of the Internet Engineering Task Force
definition, a person of skill in the internet arts would not understand the
claimed "trust anchor" merely to be "any element which affords any
measure of trust," as found by the Examiner.
In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded that Zaidi provides no
disclosure that teaches or suggests "a secure router configured as a trust
anchor," as recited in Claim 1. Therefore, we decline to sustain the rejection
of Claims 1-8 and 10-22.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-8 and 10-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
4 R. Housley, S. Ashmore, and C. Wallace, Trust Anchor Format, Internet
Engineering Task Force (ITEF), Request for Comments: 5914 (June 2010);
(available at htt12s://tools.ietf.011Uhtml/rfc59 l 4)(accessed 8/22/2016).
6