Ex Parte Bade et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 10, 201311381237 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/381,237 05/02/2006 Steven A. Bade RPS920060012US1 4009 50594 7590 10/11/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER HOLDER, BRADLEY W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2439 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/11/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte STEVEN A. BADE, RICHARD A. DAYAN, JAMES T. HANNA, and ANDREW G. KEGEL1 ________________ Appeal 2011-003814 Application 11/381,237 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, LARRY J. HUME, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 International Business Machines Corporation is the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2011-003814 Application 11/381,237 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Invention Appellants invented a method for trusted platform module (TPM) data harmonization, providing for TPM unification in a trusted computing environment. The method further can include extending a single master TPM with a measurement representing a rendezvous operation for the nodes. Spec., Abstract. Exemplary Claim (Emphasis Added) 1. A trusted platform module (TPM) log harmonization method comprising: designating both a single master TPM for a master node among a plurality of nodes, and also a multiplicity of subsidiary TPMs for remaining ones of the nodes; and, extending the single master TPM with a measurement comprising an event leading to a current configuration of at least one of the nodes and representing a rendezvous operation for the nodes. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 9–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.2 Ans. 4–5. 2 Appellants do not provide arguments or evidence showing error in the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but merely note that the Appeal 2011-003814 Application 11/381,237 3 The Examiner rejects claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bade (U.S. 2005/0246525 A1; Nov. 3, 2005) and Smith (U.S. 2007/0239748 A1; Oct. 11, 2007; filed March 29, 2006). Ans. 6–18. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Bade and Smith teaches or suggests “extending the single master TPM with a measurement comprising an event leading to a current configuration of at least one of the nodes and representing a rendezvous operation for the nodes,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Bade’s teaching of a TPM within a system- level service processor that aggregates integrity metrics gathered by node- level service processors teaches or suggests “extending the single master TPM with a measurement . . . representing a rendezvous operation for the nodes,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 6 (citing Bade, ¶¶ [0012] and [0040]). The Examiner further relies on Smith to teach or suggest that the measurement comprises “an event leading to a current configuration of at least one of the nodes.” Ans. 7 (citing Smith, ¶¶ [0021], [0032], and [0039]). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Bade does not teach or suggest a measurement comprising “an event leading to a current configuration of at least one node or an event that represents a rendezvous operation for nodes.” App. Br. 7; see also App. Br. 5–6. However, the Examiner did not enter an amendment after final to address this rejection. App. Br. 2. Therefore, we pro forma affirm this rejection. Appeal 2011-003814 Application 11/381,237 4 Examiner relies on Smith, not Bade, to teach or suggest that the measurement comprises an event. Ans. 7 and 20. Thus, Appellants’ argument merely attacks Bade individually, rather than persuasively showing error in the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of Bade and Smith. Appellants further argue that the Examiner does not construe the meaning of “rendezvous operation,” and thus the Examiner’s findings do not show that Bade teaches or suggests the “rendezvous operation” of claim 1. App. Br. 9. However, the Examiner’s rejection clearly construes “rendezvous operation” to encompass the aggregation that takes place in Bade. Ans. 6 (“extending . . . [the] TPM with measurements . . . during an aggregation which is a rendezvous operation”) and 19 (“. . . during a rendezvous operation or synchronization and aggregation of the nodes”); see also Fin. Rej. 4–5. Appellants’ arguments do not persuasively distinguish between Bade’s aggregation by a system-level service processor of integrity metrics, gathered by node-level service processors, and a “rendezvous operation.” App. Br. 7–9. In light of the Specification, we agree with the Examiner that a broad, reasonable interpretation of a “rendezvous operation” encompasses an aggregation of integrity metrics, as taught or suggested by Bade. Ans. 21–22 (citing Bade, Abstract, ¶¶ [0012], [0037], and [0040]). Appellants contend that, according to the Specification, “a rendezvous operation ‘unifies distinct systems into a single system.’” App. Br. 7 (citing Spec., ¶ [0006]). However, Bade’s system-level aggregation of node-level integrity metrics unifies, at the system-level, the node-level service processors with respect to their integrity metrics. Bade, ¶¶ [0012] and Appeal 2011-003814 Application 11/381,237 5 [0040]. Moreover, the Specification discloses “[a]t the start of rendezvous for the TPMs, the log entries from each of the subsidiary TPMs can be written to the log for the master TPM.” Spec., ¶ [0013]; see also id. at ¶ [0015]. This disclosure provides further evidence that system-level (i.e., master-level) aggregation of node-level (i.e., subsidiary-level) integrity metrics represents a “rendezvous operation” as claimed. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Bade and Smith teaches or suggests “extending the single master TPM with a measurement comprising an event leading to a current configuration of at least one of the nodes and representing a rendezvous operation for the nodes,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–12, which are not argued separately. App. Br. 5. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12. 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 tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation