Ex Parte Jeansonne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2017

14112569 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/112,569 10/18/2013 Jeff Jeansonne 83698754 2522
22879
HP Tnr
7590 11/16/2017 EXAMINER
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
TRAORE, FATOUMATA
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2017 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
y vonne.bailey @ hp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFF JEANSONNE, MONJI G. JABORI, and VALIALI
Appeal 2017-007706
Application 14/11255691
Technology Center 2400
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 and 3—13. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-007706
Application 14/112,569
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention relates to a core root of trust for measurement
(CRTM) as an extension of normal basic input/output system (BIOS) that is
used to measure integrity value of other entities. Spec. 1,3,4.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a computing system; independent claim 9
is directed to a method; and independent claim 12 is directed to a non-
transitory computer readable medium. App. Br. 12—14.
Claim 1 recites
1. A computing system comprising:
a non-volatile memory including a portion that is a core
root of trust for measurement (CRTM);
an embedded controller to verify the provider of the
CRTM; and
a host processor to execute the CRTM upon verification of
the authenticity to measure other parts of the BIOS code,
wherein the CRTM is stored on an immutable portion of
the non-volatile memory, the immutable portion being prevented
from being erased or written on by the host processor, and
wherein the embedded controller is separate from the host
processor and operates based on a boot loader in a read-only
memory.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1 and 3—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Springfield et al. (US 2011/0154010 Al, published June
23, 2011) (“Springfield”), Schaefer et al. (US 2012/0096450 Al, published
Apr. 19, 2012) (“Schaefer”), and Jansen et al. (US 2008/0288783 Al,
published Nov. 20, 2008) (“Jansen”). Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal 2017-007706
Application 14/112,569
Claims 1 and 3—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Springfield, Schaefer, and Grobman et al. (US
2010/0082960 Al, published Apr. 1, 2010) (“Grobman”). Final Act. 11.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 5—13
Claim 1 recites “wherein the embedded controller is separate from the
host processor and operates based on a boot loader in a read-only memory’''
(emphasis added).
Appellants contend Jansen does not teach the “use of the loader 112
for the verifier 108,” or “that the verifier 108 operates in any manner based
on the loader 112.” App. Br. 9-10 (emphases added); see also Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds Jansen teaches the embedded controller operating based
on a boot loader in a read-only memory. Final Act. 5 (citing Jansen Fig. 1,
145). We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants’ Specification provides broad examples that the
“embedded controller may operate based on a boot loader in a read only
memory,” and a “boot loader can be firmware that determines the operation
of the embedded controller” to “allow[] the embedded controller to reliably
determine the provider of the CRTM.” Spec. 115 (emphases added).
Appellants do not explicitly define how an embedded controller operates
based on a boot loader. Instead, the claimed embedded controller operating
based on a boot loader in a read only memory, in light of Appellants’
Specification, broadly encompasses the boot loader somehow determining
the operation of the embedded controller.
3
Appeal 2017-007706
Application 14/112,569
As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 5), Figure 1 of Jansen shows a
loader 112 and a verifier 108, where the “loader 112 computes an Operating
System (OS)-hash of an OS to be loaded on computing-platform 102.”
Jansen 126. As further cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 5), Jansen
discloses:
[a]fter verifying that the . . . OS-hash and hash of each
precedent application stored in the ME correspond to authentic
application, at step 308 verifier 108 computes the second
precedent application-hash corresponding to . . . the OS-hash[,
and the verifier 108 does this in order to verify the] . . .
operational state of computing-platform 102. Jansen 145.
In other words, Jansen teaches the loader 112 computing an OS-hash,
and the verifier 108 using and verifying the OS-hash. As such, consistent
with examples provided in Appellants’ Specification of the loader
determining the operation of the controller, Jansen’s loader 112, computing
a hash that is utilized and verified by the verifier 108, determines operation
of the verifier 108. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that
the boot loader somehow determining operation of the embedded controller,
as required by claim 1, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Jansen’s
loader 112 computing a hash that is then utilized and verified by verifier
108.
The Examiner further and alternatively finds that Grobman teaches an
embedded controller operating based on a boot loader in a read-only
memory. Final Act. 13 (citing Grobman Fig. 2,126); Ans. 11—12 (citing
Grobman Fig. 2, || 16—17, 26, 36-40). Appellants argue, for the first time
in the Reply Brief, that “there is no teaching or suggestion in Grobman that
the management engine 250 ‘operates based on a boot loader,’ as recited in
the pending claims.” Reply Br. 4.
4
Appeal 2017-007706
Application 14/112,569
We note this argument regarding Grobman in the Reply Brief is
untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012) (“Any argument raised in the
reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief. . . will not be
considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good
cause is shown.”). Here, no good cause having been shown by Appellants,
we disregard the discussion of Grobman in the Reply Brief.
However, even if we consider Appellants’ arguments with regards to
Grobman, we are still not persuaded of the Examiner’s error. The Examiner
finds that Grobman teaches the loader 244 invokes execution of the
operating system, and the management engine 250 measures and verifies the
integrity of executable components. Ans. 12 (citing Grobman || 26, 38—39);
see also Final Act. 13. As such, consistent with examples provided in
Appellants’ Specification of the loader determining the operation of the
controller, as discussed supra, Grobman’s loader 244 determines operation
of the operating system and thereby determines operation of the
management engine 250. Appellants have not provided evidence or
argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding, or otherwise explained why
Grobman’s management engine 250 does not operate based on a boot loader,
as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claim 1,
as well as the rejections of claims 5—13, not separately argued. See App. Br.
10.
Claims 3 and 4
Appellants contend “Schaefer fails to teach or suggest any embedded
controller, let alone ‘a read only memory for boot code on board the
5
Appeal 2017-007706
Application 14/112,569
embedded controller executed by the embedded controller during boot, ’ as
recited in claim 3.” App. Br. 10. Appellants further contend “since Schaefer
fails to teach or suggest an embedded controller, it necessarily fails to teach
or suggest that ‘the embedded controller is not programmable’” and the cited
portions of Springfield “fail to teach or even suggest that an ‘embedded
controller is not programmable,’ as recited in claim 4.” App. Br. 10—11.
Appellants do not provide any further explanation beyond the quoted
denials. Id.
With respect to these additional limitations in claims 3 and 4,
Appellants have failed to rebut the Examiner’s findings. To show error in
the Examiner’s position, Appellants must explain why the relied-upon
disclosure does not disclose the claimed feature, rather than merely alleging
that the feature is not shown. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388,
391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant[.]”).
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 3
and 4.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1 and 3—13 are 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