10206812 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 14, 2011)

Ex Parte Proudler

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 14, 2011

10206812 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 14, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte GRAEME JOHN PROUDLER ____________________ Appeal 2009-007854 Application 10/206,812 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-007854 Application 10/206,812 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 1 through 18, and 20 through 45. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method of controlling access to data and audit process on a computer platform. See pages 1, and 3 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A computer platform having: a trust mechanism adapted to assure third parties interacting with the computer platform that the computer platform operates according to an indicated specification; and a trusted execution area for execution of operations upon data, wherein a trusted status of the trusted execution area is assured by the trust mechanism, and having no uncontrolled communication paths with any other part of the computer platform; whereby third party data in a memory of the trusted execution area has access restrictions to parties other than the third party, and the trust mechanism is adapted to indicate to the third party an attempt to access the third party data which is inconsistent with the access restrictions. REFERENCES Tajalli US 5,361,359 Nov. 1, 1994 Proctor US 6,530,024 B1 Mar. 4, 2003 Vogt US 6,681,304 B1 Jan. 20, 2004 2 Appeal 2009-007854 Application 10/206,812 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 8 through 18, 20 through 37, 43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tajalli. Answer 3 through 8.2 The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, and 38 through 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tajalli in view of Proctor. Answer 9 through 14. The Examiner has rejected claims 4 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tajalli in view of Proctor and Vogt. Answer 14 and 15. The Examiner has rejected claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tajalli in view of Vogt. Answer 15 and 16. ISSUES Appellant’s contentions on pages 4 through 7 of the Appeal Brief3 present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the administrator in Tajalli meets the claimed “third party” who controls the audit records? 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Examiner’s Answer dated September 13, 2007. 3 Throughout this decision we refer to the Appeal Brief dated May 17, 2007. 3 Appeal 2009-007854 Application 10/206,812 ANALYSIS Claims 8 through 18, 20 through 37, 43, and 44 We have reviewed the Examiners’ anticipation rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. Particularly, as noted by the Examiner, we do not find a limitation in representative claim 8 which defines the “third party” to exclude administrators. With regard to Appellant’s arguments that the Specification makes clear the “third party” excludes administrators, we decline to import such limitations from the Specification into the claim. During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). “Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant . . . because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing and quoting In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). (“An applicant’s ability to amend his claims to avoid cited prior art distinguishes proceedings before the PTO from proceedings in federal district courts on issued patents.” Id.) Thus, we concur with the Examiner’s interpretation (Answer 4, 16) that the term third party is broad enough to include administrators as the third party. 4 Appeal 2009-007854 Application 10/206,812 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 8 through 18, 20 through 37, 43, and 44. Claims 1 through 7 and 38 through 42 and 45 Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 1 through 7 and 38 through 42, and 45 rely upon the arguments presented with respect to claim 8. As with independent claim 8, we do not find a limitation in representative claim 1 which defines the “third party” to exclude administrators. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 7 and 38 through 42 and 45 for the same reasons as claim 8. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting 8 through 18, 20 through 37, 43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting 1 through 7 and 38 through 42, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 18, and 20 through 45,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)(1)(iv). 5 Appeal 2009-007854 Application 10/206,812 AFFIRMED ELD HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD MAIL STOP 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528 6