Ex Parte Moffat et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201612780204 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation