Ex Parte Rees

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2013

11335824 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT THOMAS REES
____________________

Appeal 2011-000069
Application 11/335,824
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000069
Application 11/335,824

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–18 and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Illustrative Claim
The claimed subject matter relates to cryptographic separation
between plaintext and ciphertext (Spec., p. 1, ll. 4–6).
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with the disputed
limitation emphasized:
1. A system for data encryption comprising:
a computer containing one or more programs
implementing:
an encryption engine;
a plaintext data system resource and a ciphertext data
system resource both of which run on a single operating
system; and
operating system elements that ensure that data passing
between said plaintext data system resource and said
ciphertext data system resource is processed by the encryption
engine so as to be encrypted or decrypted, as appropriate.

References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Berger
Crispin
US 2003/0084436 A1
US 2004/0228479 A1
May 1, 2003
Nov. 18, 2004
Appeal 2011-000069
Application 11/335,824

3

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Crispin (Ans. 4–7).
Claims 2–5, 7, 9, 11–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Crispin and Berger (Ans. 7–20).

Issue
Appellant’s contentions present us with the issue of whether the
Examiner erred in finding that Crispin discloses “operating system elements
that ensure that data passing between said plaintext data system resource and
said ciphertext data system resource is processed by the encryption engine so
as to be encrypted or decrypted, as appropriate,” as recited in independent
claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding the disputed
limitation disclosed by Crispin (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 4).
Crispin is directed generally to performing cryptographic operations
in a microprocessor (Crispin ¶3). The Examiner identifies ¶40 of Crispin as
disclosing that operating-system elements ensure that data passing between
plaintext and ciphertext system resources are processed by an encryption
Appeal 2011-000069
Application 11/335,824

4
engine, identified as disclosed by the cryptography unit 316 in Fig. 3 or the
encryption application 206 in Fig. 2 (Ans. 4–5).
Appellant disputes this identification because “Crispin fails to suggest
any operating system elements that prevent other applications from
circumventing encryption application 206 by directly transferring data
between memory sections 210 and 211 without encryption” (App. Br. 4;
Reply Br. 4). We are not persuaded by this argument because it is
incommensurate with the scope of the claim. Specifically, while the claim
requires ensuring that data passing between plaintext and ciphertext system
resources be processed by the encryption engine, it imposes no additional
requirement that a transfer of data via other data paths that avoid the
encryption engine be prevented.
During patent examination, claims must be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Though understanding
the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written
description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not
part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the
written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is
broader than the embodiment” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises,
Inc., 358 F.3d 872, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Under this standard, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
adopting a construction of the word “ensure” that encompasses “invoking
cryptographic encryption/decryption application by the operating system
and/or making sure/must accomplish the required cryptographic operation”
(Ans. 14).
Appeal 2011-000069
Application 11/335,824

5
We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the
rejection of claims 6, 8, and 10 under similar reasoning. Appellant’s
contentions directed at claims 2–5, 7, 9, 11–18, and 20 argue that the
combination of Crispin and Berger fails to suggest the disputed limitation
(App. Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 6–7). Since we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in finding the limitation disclosed by Crispin, we also sustain the
rejections of these claims.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude the following:
(1) the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 6, 8, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Crispin; and
(2) the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2–5, 7, 9, 11–18, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crispin and Berger.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–18 and 20 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke