Ex Parte Schentrup et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 1, 201613252940 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/252,940 10/04/2011 105590 7590 09/06/2016 OpenPeak Inc, 1750 Clint Moore Road Boca Raton, FL 33487 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Philip Schentrup 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. 11-1134 1619 EXAMINER SCHWARTZ, DARREN B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2435 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/06/2016 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): larry.brown@openpeak.com rachael.miller@openpeak.com duda.chahine@openpeak.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHILIP SCHENTRUP and MICHAEL KELLY Appeal2015-000792 Application 13/252,940 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2015-000792 Application 13/252,940 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to a method and processing system for "creating distinct user spaces through mountable file systems" (Title (capitalization altered); Abstract). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of creating distinct user spaces, compnsmg: in a platform originally intended to be a single user platform that accommodates a single user space, for each of a plurality of users: uniquely assigning to the user at least one mountable element; and causing data associated with the user to be stored to the assigned mountable element to create a multi-user platform that accommodates more than one user space. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1---6, 9-15, and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings ofKichikawa (US 2007/0143288 Al; June 21, 2007) and Ball (US 2005/0114686 Al; May 26, 2005). The Examiner rejected claims 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings ofKichikawa, Ball, and Cherian (US 2009/0080663 Al; Mar. 26, 2009). The Examiner rejected claims 7, 16, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings ofKichikawa, Ball, and Franco (US 2009/0183254 Al; July 16, 2009). 2 Appeal2015-000792 Application 13/252,940 The Examiner rejected claims 8, 17, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kichikawa, Ball, Franco, and Jancula (US 2011/0238992 Al; Sept. 29, 2011). ANALYSIS With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Kichikawa and Ball (App. Br. 14--18; Reply Br. 2-7). Appellants argue that "provid[ing] a super-user with access to all the encryption keys - as called for in Ball - would defeat the very premise of Kichikawa" because Kichikawa isolates each user's data from other users' data and "avoid[ s] the possibility of access by a super user" (App. Br. 15-17 (citing Kichikawa i-fi-15, 64, 67, 72, 79, 126; Ball Abstract, Fig. 1, i-fi-128, 34)). Appellants conclude Ball cannot be combined with Kichikawa because Ball "is not concerned with data isolation to the extent of Kichikawa" and does not contemplate Kichikawa's concept without a super user (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 3--4, 6-7 (capitalization altered)). We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because Appellants do not address the Examiner's specific findings and rationale to combine Kichikawa and Ball. Specifically, the Examiner finds: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Kichikawa with the teachings of Ball, for the purpose of providing distinct and secure memory for one or more users regardless of computing environment in which the art resides. While Kichikawa improves upon a computer used by a single user, Kichikawa goes on to describe embodiments of the computer used by multiple users in a secure manner; Ball's invention is within the same realm of protecting data of multiple users in a multi-user environment and thus improves upon the 3 Appeal2015-000792 Application 13/252,940 teachings of Kichikawa by providing known variations in the art of platform and data security. The combination of Kichikawa and Ball teaches to create a multi-user platform that accommodates more than one user space (Kichikawa: i-fi-fl, 6; Ball: i-fi-fl, 9; Fig 1, 130; i-f28; Fig 2, 21 O; i-fi-131-32). (Final Act. 10) Thus, Ball's user-specific encryption combined with Kichikawa's single user log-on platform provides distinct and secure memory for multiple users regardless of computing environment. We also agree with the Examiner that a system that accommodates a multi-user platform must also accommodate a single-user platform, as both Kichikawa and Ball disclose (Final Act. 4). The Examiner has therefore provided sufficient articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning for supporting the rejection (Ans. 5, 9-11). See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appellants' contention that Kichikawa teaches away from the combination with Ball because "provid[ing] a super-user [as taught by Ball] with access to all the encryption keys ... would defeat the very premise of Kichikawa," is not persuasive (App. Br. 17). To establish teaching away, the prior art reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the combination or solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants' arguments, which do not address the Examiner's specific rationale for combining Kichikawa and Ball, do not provide evidence of Kichikawa criticizing, discrediting, or discouraging the Examiner's proposed combination (Ans. 9, 21, 25). Moreover, the Examiner's proposed combination is not premised on, and does not require a super-user accessing all encryption keys as Appellants assert (Ans. 9, 11, 17, 4 Appeal2015-000792 Application 13/252,940 19). We also agree Ball's technique may include, but does not require super-user access to all encryption keys (Ans. 16-18, 21-22 (citing Ball i-fi-1 33-34)). Appellants also assert the Examiner erred in finding Kichikawa discloses a platform originally intended to be a single user platform that accommodates a single user space, as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 18-22; Reply Br. 8-10). Rather, Appellants assert, Kichikawa's "standard personal computer ... was originally designed to support a plurality of users, the exact opposite of original intention of the platform recited in claim 1" (App. Br. 19 (citing Kichikawa Fig. 1, i-fi-1 2, 66) ). According to Appellants, "claim 1 presents a process of creating a multiple-user platform from a single-user platform," whereas "Kichikawa takes a multi-user platform and converts it to a single user platform because only one user is allowed to log on at one time" (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 9). Appellants additionally argue the Examiner's reliance on the Specification is misplaced because the Specification's "single user platform ... is not a subset of a multi-user platform" (App. Br. 21 (citing Spec. i-f 15); see also Reply Br. 8-9). We do not agree. Rather, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings (Ans. 25- 40). Particularly, the Examiner agrees with Appellants' definition of single user platform as presented in the Specification, and asserts Kichikawa falls within this meaning because Kichikawa "prevents multiple simultaneous logons by a plurality of users," thus "allow[ing] only a single user to access the system at-a-time" (Ans. 26, 30 (citing Kichikawa i-fi-14--5, 64--65)). Thus, as Appellants' single user platform is "designed, or intended, to accommodate a single user space and possibly an administrator," 5 Appeal2015-000792 Application 13/252,940 Kichikawa' s computer platform accommodates a single user and possibly a super user/administrator at any given time (Ans. 25-27 (citing Spec. i-f 15)). The Examiner's interpretation of "single user platform" is reasonable in light of Appellants' Specification, paragraph 15 (Ans. 25-26). That is, Kichikawa's platform meets the Specification's broad definition of a single user platform "not defined as consisting of a user space, but that it accommodates a single user space" (Ans. 32, 36, 39 (emphasis added) (citing Spec. i-f 15)). We also concur with the Examiner's finding that Appellants' arguments are directed to features not claimed (Ans. 29-30). Appellants argue Kichikawa's platform is not originally intended to be a single user platform as required by claim 1 because Kichikawa "goes from a multiple- user apparatus into one that supports log-on by a single user at any one time" (App. Br. 19, 21). Claim 1 recites the platform originally intended to be a single user platform accommodates a single user space; however, claim 1 does not preclude the platform from accommodating two different single user spaces at different times. Kichikawa's computer platform accommodating a single user space at a time is commensurate with the term "single user platform" as claimed and defined in Appellants' Specification (Ans. 29-30, 32). Additionally, we agree with the Examiner Appellants' arguments have not identified a functional or structural difference between a single user platform and a multi-user platform (Ans. 35-36). Although Appellants argue "[ c ]laim 1 is directed to a modification to an existing structure [single user platform] ... [t]he modifications to this structure ultimately create a multi-user platform that accommodates more than one user space" (Reply 6 Appeal2015-000792 Application 13/252,940 Br. 10), claim 1 does not recite any structural modification to the single user platform. In light of the broad terms recited in claim 1 and the arguments presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 9, 10, 18, and 23 argued for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, and dependent claims 2-8, 11-17, 19-22, and 24--30 for which no substantive or separate arguments are provided (App. Br. 22-26, 28-31 ). DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-30 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation