Ex Parte Moffat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

12780204 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121780,204 05/14/2010 Darren J. Moffat
51344 7590 02/26/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN I STK
1000 TOWN CENTER, TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
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.
SUN100130-US-NP 1194
EXAMINER
P ALIW AL, YOGESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2435
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DARREN J. MOFFAT, JEFFREYS. BONWICK,
WILLIAM H. MOORE, MATTHEW A. AHRENS, MARK J. MAYBEE,
GEORGE WILSON, and NEIL V. PERRIN
Appeal2014-002556
Application 12/780,204
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a method for making data in a data set
inaccessible by generating a data encryption key. Specification 3.
Appeal2014-002556
Application 12/780,204
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for making data in a data set inaccessible
compnsmg:
generating a data encryption key (i) configured to
encrypt data within a data set of a transaction based file system
and (ii) associated with a set of transaction identifiers of the
transaction based file system;
key;
wrapping the data encryption key with a wrapping key;
creating an encrypted data set with the data encryption
storing the wrapped data encryption key with the
encrypted data set indexed by at least one of the set of
transaction identifiers;
receiving a command to delete the encrypted data set;
and
altering or changing the wrapping key in response to the
command to make data in the encrypted data set inaccessible.
Re} ections on Appeal1
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moffat (Darren J. Moffat, ZFS Encryption Project
(2008), http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/zfs-crypto/files/zfs-crypto-
design.pdf) and Maheshwari (U.S. Patent Number 7,152,165 Bl; issued
December 19, 2006). Final Rejection 5-10.2
Claims 2-5 and 14--19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moffat, Maheshwari, and Moffat Blog (Darren
1 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 8-13. See
Advisory Action mailed June 10, 2013.
2 Claim 13 was not included in the statement of rejection by the Examiner
but was addressed in the body of the rejection. See Final Rejection 9-10.
The omission of claim 13 is considered to be harmless error.
2
Appeal2014-002556
Application 12/780,204
Moffat, ZFS Crypto Update (Apr. 3, 2009),
https://blogs.oracle.com/darren/entry/zfs_crypto_update 1 ). Final Rejection
10-15.
Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moffat, Maheshwari, and Dodge (U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2007 /0005894 Al; published January 4, 2007). Final Rejection
15-16.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moffat, Maheshwari, Moffat Blog, and Dodge. Final
Rejection 16-17.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 29, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed
January 2, 2014), the Answer (mailed November 1, 2013), and the Final
Rejection (mailed February 28, 2013) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief
and adopt them as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly
overturn or set aside in the analysis as follows.
3
Appeal2014-002556
Application 12/780,204
Appellants argue that Maheshwari does not disclose generating a data
encryption key associated with a set of transaction identifiers of a transaction
based file system because, although Maheshwari may be a transaction based
file system, Maheshwari's "[t]ransaction identifiers are [not] time based
entries indicating when particular data was written as known in the art."
Appeal Brief 3. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because
the Specification does not support Appellants' assertion that the transaction
identifiers are time based entries. 3 See Specification 7-19.
Appellants argue that the Examiner did not establish a prima facie
case of obviousness because modifying Moffat was unnecessary because
Moffat already supported higher-level database functions. Appeal Brief 4.
We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive because the Examiner
modifies Moffat by employing Maheshwari' s disclosure of a "trusted storage
system in which data encryption key is associated with a set of transaction
identifiers of the file system."4 Final Rejection 7.
3 During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest
reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
4 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); andin re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The
Examiner can satisfy this test by showing some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
KSR Int'!. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441
F.3d at 988).
4
Appeal2014-002556
Application 12/780,204
We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well
as the obviousness rejections of claim 2-20 not separately argued.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-20 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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5