13198467 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

Ex Parte Lawson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 24, 2016

13198467 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/198,467 08/04/2011 63759 7590 06/28/2016 DUKEW. YEE YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C. P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jack D. Lawson 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. 10-1324-US-NP 7853 EXAMINER ALMAN!, MOHSEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2016 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): ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com mgamez@yeeiplaw.com patentadmin@boeing.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JACK D. LAWSON, TODD WILLIAM GOULD, and CHARLES DAVID ROYALTY Appeal2014-007321 Application 13/198,467 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-007321 Application 13/198,467 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to validating software parts on an aircraft using hash values. (Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for validating software parts on an aircraft, compnsmg: calculating a first hash value for a software part on the aircraft; determining, on the aircraft, whether the first hash value matches a second hash value from a software integrity data structure stored on the aircraft, the software integrity data structure comprising hash values that are not determined on the aircraft for the software parts used by the aircraft; and performing an operation on the software part on the aircraft in response to a determination that the first hash value matches the second hash value. REJECTIONS Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Migliasso et al. (US 2011/0219267 Al; published Sept. 8, 2011). ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Migliasso discloses "determining, on the aircraft, whether the first hash value matches a second hash value from a software integrity data structure stored on the aircraft," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 8 and 15? 2 Appeal2014-007321 Application 13/198,467 The Examiner relies on paragraphs 7 6, 90, 92, 94, 96, 106, and 109- 111 of Migliasso to disclose the disputed limitation. (Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 2-5). Specifically, the Examiner relies on the comparison of Migliasso's real configuration report (first hash value) and theoretical configuration report (second hash value from a software integrity data structure stored on the aircraft). (Id.) Appellants contend "Migliasso does not describe or suggest where the comparison between the real configuration report and the theoretical configuration report described therein is performed." (App. Br. 8, emphasis added). Specifically, Appellants argue paragraph 111 of Migliasso "merely introduces the description of the generic hardware architecture shown in Fig. 5." (App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants argue paragraph 111 does not describe which of the particular steps of the algorithm are performed on a server, a computer, or an onboard computer." (Id.; see also Reply Br. 3). Appellants also contend "Migliasso does not describe or suggest that either the work order or the configuration report is stored on the aircraft." (App. Br. 9). According to Appellants, "Migliasso does not describe or suggest that the data loader described therein is used to load or store the theoretical configuration report comprising the reference keys on the aircraft." (Id.). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the Examiner's findings. (Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 2-5). Paragraph 111 states: FIG. 5 illustrates an example of hardware architecture, for example a server, a computer or an on-board computer, adapted to employ the invention, especially steps 400 to 445 and/or steps 450 to 470 of the algorithm shown in FIG 4. 3 Appeal2014-007321 Application 13/198,467 (emphasis added). Migliasso describes the comparison of the real and theoretical configuration reports is performed in step 470 of Figure 4. (Migliasso i-f 109). Migliasso states step 470 is typically carried out by a maintenance operator or automatically. (Migliasso i-f 11 O; see also Migliasso i-fi-189, 90, 92, 94, 96). Given this disclosure, we agree with the Examiner's findings that the real configuration report and theoretical configuration report are compared on an on-board computer on the aircraft. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Migliasso discloses the disputed limitation, and sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants present substantially the same arguments for independent claims 8 and 15. (App. Br. 11-12, 15-16). We, therefore, sustain those rejections for the same reasons. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, which were not argued separately (App. Br. 11-13). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of 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. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4