Ex Parte Leung et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 26, 2012

09751576 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LOK YAN LEUNG, ANTHONY JOESPH NADALIN, BRUCE
ARLAND RICH, and THEODORE JACK LONDON SHRADER
____________

Appeal 2009-013393
Application 09/751,576
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013393
Application 09/751,576

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-21, and 23-32, which are all the claims remaining
in the application. Claims 3 and 22 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for managing access to data
in a keystore in a data processing system. A request for access to an item of
data is received from a requestor, wherein the item of data is encrypted using
a key. A determination of whether the requestor is a trusted requestor is
made. The key and the item of data are sent to the requestor in response to a
determination that the requestor is a trusted requestor. Abstract.

Representative Claim

1. A method in a data processing system for managing access
to data in a keystore, the method comprising:

receiving a request for access to an item of data from a
requestor, wherein the item of data is encrypted using a first
key;

determining whether the requestor is a trusted requestor,
wherein the determining step is performed by checking a
requestor's identity against a trusted codebase;

responsive to a determination that the requestor is a trusted
requestor, decrypting a copy of the item of data using a second
key to form a decrypted item of data; and
Appeal 2009-013393
Application 09/751,576

3

sending the decrypted item of data to the requestor.

Prior Art
Cane US 5,940,507 Aug. 17, 1999
Padgett US 6,167,518 Dec. 26, 2000

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4-21, and 23-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cane and Padgett.

Claim Groupings
We decide the appeal on the basis of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 11.

PRINCIPAL ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Cane and
Padgett teaches “determining whether the requestor is a trusted requestor,
wherein the determining step is performed by checking a requestor's identity
against a trusted codebase” and “responsive to a determination that the
requestor is a trusted requestor, decrypting a copy of the item of data using a
second key to form a decrypted item of data” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 12, 14, 20, 21, 27-29, and 32
Appellants contend that Cane does not teach “responsive to a
determination that the requestor is a trusted requestor, decrypting a copy of
the item of data using a second key to form a decrypted item of data” as
Appeal 2009-013393
Application 09/751,576

4
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 17-22; Reply Br. 4-5. According to Appellants,
Cane teaches encrypting a file with a secondary key, then encrypting the
secondary key with a master key. The encrypted file and encrypted
secondary key are sent to an archive server. To recover an encrypted file,
the encrypted file and the encrypted key are sent from the archive server to
the client. The master key is used to decrypt the secondary key, then the
secondary key is used to decrypt the file. App. Br.19.
We find that the encrypted file that is retrieved from the archive file
by the client is “a copy” of the encrypted file within the meaning of claim 1.
Decrypting the copy of the encrypted file using the master key to decrypt the
secondary key then using the secondary key to decrypt the file as taught by
Cane teaches “decrypting a copy of the item of data using a second key to
form a decrypted item of data” within the meaning of claim 1.
Appellants contend that Cane does not teach a “trusted requestor,”
therefore, Cane cannot teach “responsive to a determination that the
requestor is a trusted requestor” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 22-23.
Appellants also contend that neither Cane nor Padgett teach “determining
whether the requestor is a trusted requestor, wherein the determining step is
performed by checking a requestor’s identity against a trusted codebase.”
App. Br. 24-25.
Appellants’ contentions are inconsistent with Appellants’ admissions
on page 10, lines 2-19of the Specification that determining whether a
requestor is trusted can be made by various security checks well known in
the art. Also, the Examiner finds that Padgett teaches determining whether a
requestor is a trusted requestor by checking a requestor’s identity against a
trusted database. Ans. 4, 5-6. The Examiner further finds that Cane teaches
Appeal 2009-013393
Application 09/751,576

5
authentication measures, and that one of skill in the art would have
recognized that authentication measures include comparing a user’s name
and password against an authorized list. Ans. 5-6. We agree with the
findings and conclusion made by the Examiner.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2, 5, 8-10, 12,
14, 20, 21, 24, 27-29, and 32, which fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claims 4 and 23
Appellants contend that Cane does not teach “wherein the item of data
is another key” as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 26. We observe that “the
item of data is another key” as recited in claim 4 is a description of the item
that does not alter any steps or structural elements of the method recited in
claim 4. The “item of data is another key” is therefore non-functional
descriptive material that does not distinguish the claim from the prior art in
terms of patentability. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Ex Parte
Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008)(precedential). We sustain
the rejection of claims 4 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 6 and 25
Appellants contend that Cane does not teach “the item of data is
indexed within the Keystore using an alias” as recited in claim 6. According
to Appellants, Cane teaches storing the location of the encrypted file in the
archive server in an index, but does not teach indexing using an alias. App.
Br. 26-27. The scope of “alias” recited in claim 6 encompasses information.
Appeal 2009-013393
Application 09/751,576

6
Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive argument to distinguish
an “item of data” that “is indexed … using an alias” from an encrypted file
that is indexed using the key’s name and location as taught by Cane (col. 4,
ll. 37-41). We sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 7, 13, and 26
Appellants contend that Cane does not teach “responsive to an
absence of a determination that the requestor is a trusted requestor, returning
a null result to the requestor” as recited in claim 7, because Cane does not
teach a trusted requestor as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 27. We find this
argument unpersuasive for the reasons given in the analysis of claim 1. We
sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
present arguments for claim 13 (App. Br. 27-28) similar to those presented
for claim 6 which we find unpersuasive.

Section 103 rejection of claims 11, 15-19, 30, and 31
Appellants contend that Cane does not teach “determining whether the
requestor is a trusted requestor, wherein the determining step is performed
by checking a requestor’s identity against a trusted codebase” as recited in
claim 11. App. Br. 29. We find this argument unpersuasive for the reasons
given in the analysis of claim 1.
Appellants contend that Cane does not teach “responsive to a
determination that the requestor is a trusted requestor, sending a second key
and an encrypted copy of the item of data to the requestor” as recited in
claim 11. App. Br. 29. We find that retrieving the encrypted file and
Appeal 2009-013393
Application 09/751,576

7
retrieving the master key from the memories of Cane teaches “sending a
second key and an encrypted copy of the item of data to the requestor”
within the meaning of claim 11. We sustain the rejection of claims 11, 15-
19, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, which are not argued separately (App.
Br. 30).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Cane and
Padgett teaches “determining whether the requestor is a trusted requestor,
wherein the determining step is performed by checking a requestor's identity
against a trusted codebase” and “responsive to a determination that the
requestor is a trusted requestor, decrypting a copy of the item of data using a
second key to form a decrypted item of data” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-21, and 23-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cane and Padgett 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tj